I disagree, actually. I enjoyed Mostly Harmless quite a bit. It had a kind of cyclical "wholeness" to it. Then again, I generally like it when authors have the guts to kill off their main characters. Much better than leaving things hanging in my opinion. It's like songs that fade out . . . Just finish the thing, darnit!:)
And if you don't read MH, you'll never know the joys of Colin! Heck, that whole series with Ford was brilliant. As were the bits where Arthur was the Sandwichmaker. On the whole, I loved it.
So I would suggest to those who haven't read MH to go for it.
Oh, I wasn't terribly clear there . . . I meant that the device would only give out a total of one IP address with DHCP. Which would prevent someone from plugging a hub into their jack and having three computers share the network connection. But maybe you wouldn't mind doind that. The little device would still do the NATting regardless, so it's just an issue of how complicated you want this device to be. Will it just support one connection, or will it do more?
I suppose some people might be all right with that, but I know that I certainly wouldn't trust some program a hotel gives me. Then you've got the support nightmare. "Your program destroyed my hard drive which had all my mp3s on it!" You'd probably want to have a Mac version, too, because while MS machines are probably more prevalent, you'd likely have a rather upset Apple user base to deal with otherwise. And that probably means doing an OSX version and a pre-OSX version.
You'd also have to worry about various Windozes, too. I'd wager that WinXP's networking code would have to be done differently from Win98. I'd say you're best off trying to find a solution that doesn't involve installing programs on the people's laptops. Or just saying, "If you want to use our network, use DHCP." I don't think that's too much to ask . . .
Those translators have to be able to do DHCP as well though, don't forget.
Yeah, that's true . . . I suppose you could have it allow all DHCP traffic through, which should be easy enough, and then have your DHCP operate on a different subnet than the IPs assigned to the devices themselves. Or would the routing tables be too weird for that? I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to just have those devices support a mini-DHCP protocol that just always spits out some IP. You'd probably want to limit it to one IP per device . . . Or not. Hm.
Well, yes, but the whole point for getting rid of PCAnywhere was for me to be able to use Linux to access this server. If Linux can't talk to my modem, I might as well just be using PCAnywhere, 'cause I'm still in Windoze-land.
. . . what range of IPs would you assign when doing DHCP for someone, then? Someone's configuration is going to give you problems. If you assign someone a DHCP address in the 10.x.x.x block and then someone comes in with a static 10.x.x.x for some reason, you're screwed . . . I suppose in that scenario you could tell the DHCP server to not use that one IP address. But then what happens if the DHCP server assigns somone 10.0.10.10 and then someone comes in with that static IP? You've got a mess on your hands, that's what.
Not to mention if someone comes in with a laptop that has a publicly-accessible IP; it's possible, anyway. How will you know to route that properly? I suppose that's pretty farfetched, actually, because the person with a publicly-available static IP on a laptop wouldn't expect it to work outside the network it usually sits in. But still, if that's one of your requirements, what then? Where does traffic to that IP route? Out to the world the way it's supposed to, or inside your hotel network? If you allow global IPs and do some funky route hacking, it would be trivial for someone to boot up their laptop with an IP of 216.239.39.101 and suddenly nobody in the hotel can get to Google. Bad idea.
Someone's toes are going to have to be stepped on somewhere along the line. Someone else can come around and prove me wrong, though, if they can.:)
I should have done some more research before posting; seems that VNC will do the modem thing for me: rtfm. So all that's left is to get Linux to cope with my modem. Groovy.
Actually, I couldn't. The machines I'm accessing are behind rather sensitive firewalls, and the only way to actually get to the machines from outside is to go over phone lines . . . I use Terminal Services and rdesktop already to do most of my Windoze work here, but that doesn't support modem dialing (afaik).
Plus, the only computer I've got with a modem at all is my laptop, and it's some sort of weird Winmodem that doesn't work well under Linux to begin with. So for now I'm stuck with PCAnywhere, I think.
Well, I don't think that Windoze is really dependant on the application Internet Explorer; more the libraries that come bundled with it. I've been forced to spend a lot of time in Windoze 2000 lately (need to access some PCAnywhere machines, unfortunately - I should see if there's an opensouce PCAnywhere client, but I doubt it), and I've noticed that IE's rendering stuff is everywhere. When you open up "help," when you're browsing around on your computer . . . The libraries that IE uses to grab webpages and show them on the screen have been re-used to hell and back again, which realy is an acceptable thing to do.
I don't know why Microsoft keeps on claiming that the application itself is nonremoveable. Just delete the IE binary; of course it's removeable. What they should do is have some kind of "Internet Services Pack" or whatever which is a basic, nonremoveable part of Windoze, and then just have IE be the shell that accesses those components. There, problem solved. I'm guessing it'd just be a matter of repackaging some things.
I'm guessing that MS is still claiming that IE the application can't be removed just because they want to keep everyone using it by default. Keepin' the resellers down and all. Or hell, I don't care if IE keeps on getting shipped with Windows, just let the poor OEM people install Mozilla by default! Anyway, yeah.
I could be totally wrong about all that, but that's how it seems to me.
Hm, good point. Although I disagree with your criticism of the celebrity cameos. Without N-Sync, we never would have been graced with the line, "Those wack invertebrates'll sting you OLD SCHOOL!" Brilliance.
You beat me to the punch. There's a reason respectable scientists publish things in peer-reviewed journals. Just another scare tactic. Anyone want to place bets as to whether these people have ties with the "eat truckloads of meat" diet thing that was so popular last year? Bah.
So you posted at +1. Big whoop. It's more effort to turn it off than it is to leave it turned on. That troll just made it sound like you went to all this trouble to post at +1. Bah. Just ignore 'em.
Hmmm... While I agree that it does sound pretty cool, I actually like all the elements of non-reality. (I was about to use the word "unreal" and realized that would have sounded silly.) I don't really want to play something that's entirely realistic and makes me feel like I'm really killing people. In Q3 and UT, I can frag people all I want; they keep coming back! No permanent damage done . . . I've always found the more "realistic" simulations a touch disturbing.
Except I've also never heard of Operation Flashpoint. The squirrel running across my street right now, on the other hand, has heard of Unreal Tournament.
nothing thats currently being put out by the recording industry is worth listening to.
Well, little that's being promoted by the major players is worth listening to, for sure, but to say that nothing good is coming out of them is a little extreme. Bjork is still doing phenomenal work. I believe that Rasputina is still on Columbia. Radiohead's on a pretty major label, I think. I thought that the latest NIN release was good, and I believe they eventually go through Universal. Then if you go just a few steps away from the "big" labels, you've got tons of cool things happening. Cold Meat Industry continues to be amazing, Projekt seems to be in something of a decline, but there's still some good stuff coming out of them. Warp Records is great.
I used to work for a company that actually used IRC. We had a bunch of geographically-diverse locations, and we needed to be in near-constant communication with them, so we just set up an IRC server and that was that.
Ah, what fun we had with bots . . . We had a bot to talk to our phone list database, a bot to page people, etc . . . Grand fun.
Perhaps this bug is not deemed to be 'serious' since the point of having bookmarks is diminished when you store more than one pointing at the same place, right? Why would you do that?
If you're like me, you'll quickly lose track of your bookmarks and end up creating a bunch of "archive" folders to move bookmarks into, and eventually you'll end up duplicating a book mark. ("Wow! What a cool site! Haven't I been here before? No matter. I'll just bookmark it!")
Also, some things might fit under a number of different categories. Slashdot could fit under "news" and "diversions," and maybe a "daily" folder that stores bookmarks you like to go to every morning.
I agree that it's not that big of a deal, though. ("Hm, I can't add this bookmark. Strange."/me moves on)
Aaah, cool. Looks neat. But while I bear no particular malice towards emacs, I'm afraid that my heart belongs to vi and vi alone, so I guess I'll have to forgo the cool tab-completed-words-during-email thing. Or code it up myself, I suppose, but that would involve work.:) Thanks!
Also, "i18n" has been in common usage for some time now. If you've ever installed KDE or Gnome from source you'd probably notice it too when reading the docs to figure out which packages need to be installed first.
Although I disagree about the "pointless" bit. Typing "internationalization" every time the word comes up in an internationalization conversation can be a bit tiring.
Okay, so don't use Gentoo, then. If you could walk into a Best Buy and purchase a copy of Gentoo, I'm guessing that listed alongside the hardware requirements there'd be "broadband internet connection."
Nobody's forcing you to use Gentoo over a modem connection; to say that it sucks because it requires something you don't have is just insane. It's like me complaining that Quake 3 sucks because I'm running in software mode on a card w/ 4MB of memory.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you don't read MH, you'll never know the joys of Colin! Heck, that whole series with Ford was brilliant. As were the bits where Arthur was the Sandwichmaker. On the whole, I loved it.
So I would suggest to those who haven't read MH to go for it.
Oh, I wasn't terribly clear there . . . I meant that the device would only give out a total of one IP address with DHCP. Which would prevent someone from plugging a hub into their jack and having three computers share the network connection. But maybe you wouldn't mind doind that. The little device would still do the NATting regardless, so it's just an issue of how complicated you want this device to be. Will it just support one connection, or will it do more?
You'd also have to worry about various Windozes, too. I'd wager that WinXP's networking code would have to be done differently from Win98. I'd say you're best off trying to find a solution that doesn't involve installing programs on the people's laptops. Or just saying, "If you want to use our network, use DHCP." I don't think that's too much to ask . . .
Yeah, that's true . . . I suppose you could have it allow all DHCP traffic through, which should be easy enough, and then have your DHCP operate on a different subnet than the IPs assigned to the devices themselves. Or would the routing tables be too weird for that? I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to just have those devices support a mini-DHCP protocol that just always spits out some IP. You'd probably want to limit it to one IP per device . . . Or not. Hm.
Well, I suppose that would be cool . . . That would probably take care of most of the problems. I dig. Good show!
Well, yes, but the whole point for getting rid of PCAnywhere was for me to be able to use Linux to access this server. If Linux can't talk to my modem, I might as well just be using PCAnywhere, 'cause I'm still in Windoze-land.
I suppose . . . Seems to me you'll still have interruption of service, though. Plus that might be an awful lot of overhead for the DHCP server.
That's brilliant. :)
Not to mention if someone comes in with a laptop that has a publicly-accessible IP; it's possible, anyway. How will you know to route that properly? I suppose that's pretty farfetched, actually, because the person with a publicly-available static IP on a laptop wouldn't expect it to work outside the network it usually sits in. But still, if that's one of your requirements, what then? Where does traffic to that IP route? Out to the world the way it's supposed to, or inside your hotel network? If you allow global IPs and do some funky route hacking, it would be trivial for someone to boot up their laptop with an IP of 216.239.39.101 and suddenly nobody in the hotel can get to Google. Bad idea.
Someone's toes are going to have to be stepped on somewhere along the line. Someone else can come around and prove me wrong, though, if they can. :)
I should have done some more research before posting; seems that VNC will do the modem thing for me: rtfm. So all that's left is to get Linux to cope with my modem. Groovy.
Plus, the only computer I've got with a modem at all is my laptop, and it's some sort of weird Winmodem that doesn't work well under Linux to begin with. So for now I'm stuck with PCAnywhere, I think.
I don't know why Microsoft keeps on claiming that the application itself is nonremoveable. Just delete the IE binary; of course it's removeable. What they should do is have some kind of "Internet Services Pack" or whatever which is a basic, nonremoveable part of Windoze, and then just have IE be the shell that accesses those components. There, problem solved. I'm guessing it'd just be a matter of repackaging some things.
I'm guessing that MS is still claiming that IE the application can't be removed just because they want to keep everyone using it by default. Keepin' the resellers down and all. Or hell, I don't care if IE keeps on getting shipped with Windows, just let the poor OEM people install Mozilla by default! Anyway, yeah.
I could be totally wrong about all that, but that's how it seems to me.
But otherwise, yeah, right on. :)
You beat me to the punch. There's a reason respectable scientists publish things in peer-reviewed journals. Just another scare tactic. Anyone want to place bets as to whether these people have ties with the "eat truckloads of meat" diet thing that was so popular last year? Bah.
So you posted at +1. Big whoop. It's more effort to turn it off than it is to leave it turned on. That troll just made it sound like you went to all this trouble to post at +1. Bah. Just ignore 'em.
Hmmm... While I agree that it does sound pretty cool, I actually like all the elements of non-reality. (I was about to use the word "unreal" and realized that would have sounded silly.) I don't really want to play something that's entirely realistic and makes me feel like I'm really killing people. In Q3 and UT, I can frag people all I want; they keep coming back! No permanent damage done . . . I've always found the more "realistic" simulations a touch disturbing.
Except I've also never heard of Operation Flashpoint. The squirrel running across my street right now, on the other hand, has heard of Unreal Tournament.
Lisa: Superliminal?
L.T. Smash: I'll show you. (opens window) HEY YOU! JOIN THE NAVY!
Carl: Uh, yeah, alright.
Lenny: I'm in!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Well, little that's being promoted by the major players is worth listening to, for sure, but to say that nothing good is coming out of them is a little extreme. Bjork is still doing phenomenal work. I believe that Rasputina is still on Columbia. Radiohead's on a pretty major label, I think. I thought that the latest NIN release was good, and I believe they eventually go through Universal. Then if you go just a few steps away from the "big" labels, you've got tons of cool things happening. Cold Meat Industry continues to be amazing, Projekt seems to be in something of a decline, but there's still some good stuff coming out of them. Warp Records is great.
So yeah. :P
Ah, what fun we had with bots . . . We had a bot to talk to our phone list database, a bot to page people, etc . . . Grand fun.
If you're like me, you'll quickly lose track of your bookmarks and end up creating a bunch of "archive" folders to move bookmarks into, and eventually you'll end up duplicating a book mark. ("Wow! What a cool site! Haven't I been here before? No matter. I'll just bookmark it!")
Also, some things might fit under a number of different categories. Slashdot could fit under "news" and "diversions," and maybe a "daily" folder that stores bookmarks you like to go to every morning.
I agree that it's not that big of a deal, though. ("Hm, I can't add this bookmark. Strange." /me moves on)
Aaah, cool. Looks neat. But while I bear no particular malice towards emacs, I'm afraid that my heart belongs to vi and vi alone, so I guess I'll have to forgo the cool tab-completed-words-during-email thing. Or code it up myself, I suppose, but that would involve work. :) Thanks!
But I'm beating a dead horse. :P
Although I disagree about the "pointless" bit. Typing "internationalization" every time the word comes up in an internationalization conversation can be a bit tiring.
But still, that's quite funny.
Which MUA would that be, by the way? Just curious.
Nobody's forcing you to use Gentoo over a modem connection; to say that it sucks because it requires something you don't have is just insane. It's like me complaining that Quake 3 sucks because I'm running in software mode on a card w/ 4MB of memory.