The new title is Programming Visual C++, as the book was continued by George Shepherd and Scot Wingo. Dave Kruglinski is still credited as author. And yes, you are correct about the accident.
I concur - Petzold is a god. In addition, though, give some consideration to Brent Rector's Win32 Programming. This book is almost unknown, but it is a far, far more cumulative reference and guide to the Win32 APIs than the last couple of editions of Petzold's book.
For MFC? The latest edition of Inside Visual C++ is called Programming Visual C++. After David Kruglinski's untimely death while hanggliding, George Shepherd and Scot Wingo took over. Their other book, MFC Internals is among the best programming books ever written, even if it IS about MFC.
The best book on COM and ATL 3.0 is Developer's Workshop to COM and ATL 3.0 by Andrew Troelsen. This book is meant for programmers, and will take you through COM in C++, then show you how to take all the shortcuts of ATL (Active Template Library). It's hardly known, but it's a really well-written book - much better than the more oft-quoted standards.
OReilly has a few good books, and Addison Wesley books are consistently good. Both companies books are generally geared to the more advanced, experienced programmer. Almost any book by one of the following authors will be useful:
Chris Sells, Don Box, Brent Rector, Mike Woodring, George Shepherd, Scot Wingo, Mike Blaszczak, Jeffrey Richter, Charles Petzold, Jeff Prosise. Starting with the books I mention, a C++ programmer can quickly begin to find his/her way about the arbitrariness that is Windows.
Of course,.NET is a monkey wrench for some developers. Rest assured that C++/ATL/COM is still there, though, and forms the best and only solution for native-code Windows programming. I can't recommend too many books for.NET - it's just too early. The Microsoft MSDN site is the best reference so far, as well as a great reference for all the rest. Best of luck!
15" to 18"? Even our local universities only have 12" Cave Astrolas (restored and maintained by the local club). Our local club members are the ones with the big scopes; the club even has a full dome on a dark site with a permanent pier.
Being quite the 'nix afficionado myself, I understand some of the rather hateful sentiments expressed toward MS. I take issue with some of Mr. Schneier's (whom I greatly respect) comments, however, as being opposed to the mindset of progress.
For instance,
Implementation of Microsoft SOAP, a protocol running over HTTP precisely so it could bypass firewalls, should be withdrawn.
strikes me as an ill-conceived statement. SOAP, for the uninformed, is just an XML-based protocol carried through HTTP. It doesn't BYPASS the firewall, it passes through the port generally held open for the use of web servers. We're packaging an XML envelope that a SOAP implementation can open and use, not passing some magic packet that your web server can use to format its harddrives. Firewalls can be made to use SOAP information to block SOAP packets, and servers don't have to respond to ill-formed, ill-conceived, or ill-meanings SOAP calls. How the heck can removing SOAP all-together be considered a practical security measure, anymore than simply removing the web server from the net entirely? Sure, you might get your C-2 rating, but is it worthwhile?
MS has attempted to create a high-functionality server platform, one that installs with the purpose of usability as its default. This simplifies the installation process, creating a process that relies less on the intelligence and experience of the user and more on the good nature of MS itself (as the one who created the installation system). MS does not necessarily have YOUR interests in mind, but the interests of a non-specific "user" in mind - a user whose needs profile may or may not fit your own. Microsoft needs to expand their thinking to include the needs of secure-minded individuals, granted, but the needs of ALL users should still be taken into account, and documentation created that explains the differences.
I'll be the first to admit that Windows has security issues, however, I contend that the nature of networking imposes security problems on ALL operating systems. I doubt too many persons could implement a secure 'nix OR a secure Win box. Intelligence and experience are required in both.
Can you provide some specific instance that illustrates your point? It appears to me that the backwards-compatibility bits of Win2K and XP have provided a more secure Windows environment, rather than less. For instance, the Virtual Machine used to house 16 bit Windows applications provides a sandbox for ill-behaving applications.
Backwards-compatibility is at the core of none of the current security problems currently within Win platforms - at least none of those I can bring to mind. Please, prove me wrong.
Astrophotography is one of the most frustrating hobbies around. Prepare to spend LOTS and LOTS of money, and LOTS and LOTS of time. It's great fun for the seasoned astronomer, but a beginner will probably scare him/herself out of the hobby rather quickly. I heartily recommend AGAINST diving in this particularly deep end of the pool. Again: join a club, learn the sky, THEN think about instrumentation.
I really, really can't agree with this recommendation. The 3.5 inch is a tiny, tiny scope, and really not terribly useful for astronomy, particularly in a reflector. In the case of the Celestron, you're spending far too much for the Celestron logo on the side of the tube. The mount is a piece of shit, and the scope is barely a step above a department store scope.
If you're interested in high-portability, something similar to the Meade ETX would serve you better. It's a tiny scope, but it's at least TRYING to be a good scope, and does pretty well for an inexpensive Cass.
In this range, I would DEFINITELY go with 6 to 8 inch Dob.
Amateur astronomy is an excellent, and quite rewarding, hobby. I've been an amateur astronomer, albeit a serious one, for about 15 years or so. My recommendations for every new astronomer is the same:
LEARN the sky.
Far too many new astronomers enter into the field by purchasing a poor department store telescope, or conversely, purchasing an expensive instrument far beyond their capabilities and interest. Taking the time to look at the sky with your naked eyes will serve you better if you become serious about astronomy, or if you decide it's just not for you. If you just have to purchase something, check out binocular astronomy. Orion has a wide range of good binoculars for astronomy. Binoculars have a wide, rich field of view, they're extremely portable, and they have uses OTHER than astronomy. The benefits are obvious:
you'll satisfy your urge to purchase something
binoculars are extremely portable (most of the time)
binoculars are good for other things, if your interest in astronomy wanes
the view through binoculars is often better than that of the best scopes (excepting a few instances)
Good binoculars for astronomy aren't big on power, so avoid getting a big 'X' rating. What you're looking for is aperture (remember, aperture is about light-collection capability; more aperture, brighter images) 10x30 is the smallest binocular you'll find that's useful for astronomy, but an 7x30 can also be fun. 10x50 (~US$200)is about the best all-around binocular for astronomy, but 10x70s (~$300) can be found for reasonable prices these days. Orion has several nice binoculars for good prices.
Buying a telescope is another animal. I strongly recommend learning as much as you can about telescopes before purchasing one (you might even decide to build your own). Check out a book called Star Ware for an excellent description of common astronomical instruments, including a full rundown on scopes. Additionally, I would recommend searching out your local astronomical club. Astronomy clubs are generally filled with interesting people with expensive scopes and lots of good advice. You'll learn more with a club than though any other venue, and you'll get a chance to peer through those sexy scopes your wallet burns to purchase...BEFORE you buy one and have to live with it.
If you actually purchase a scope, my own preferences lean toward the Dobsonian Newtonian. (A Newtonian reflector on a Dobson mount) These things are easy on the pocketbook, have enormous apertures, and really let the beginner learn the ropes of astronomy before becoming encumbered with the automatic push-a-button-see-a-star stuff that Meade wants to sell you. You'll find lots of good stuff at Orion in the range of $300 to $500 - their 6" Skyquest Dob is currently $349. Having owned the first version of this scope, the Deep Space Explorer, I recommend this scope wholeheartedly for a first scope. Buy this and spend the rest on eyepieces (a subject I shan't broach) for a really fun scope that will serve you for years. It's portable (sorta bulky, but portable), big, clean, and perfect to get your feet wet.
Feel free to contact me if you have questions. I have LOTS of opinions that I generally dole out for free.:) Have fun!
Being a native Georgian (southwest Georgian for that matter...Albany - a REAL backwater), and a comparatively savvy technogeek, I am filled with horror. These idiot lawyers are going to do everything they can to make a name for themselves in whatever context they consider important, intelligence be damned. Of course, if in doing so, they drag the name of Georgia back into the yeehaw days (Gawrsh, Goober, that there computey-thang shor is makin' them nekkid wimmens look purty an' all. Gimme a chaw.), they don't care.
Georgia is full of intelligent, growing technologists - startups, academics, and all-around geeks. These barristers' motives are pure old-fashioned power plays, making a name for themselves and wielding power over those who don't respect them. Please don't consider all of us Georgians hicks; we geeks live in a meritocracy separate from these backwater jackasses we elect or appoint to office.
Wire what you WANT, and then add an extra run to your office, your wife's office, and behind your televisions. Don't forget the kitchen.
My new house was completed last April, and I've got 5e drops (2 or more per room) with a 100M switch in the "wiring closet" - an extra room in our attic. We considered fiber, too, but realized that fiber connections are just the flakiest things in the world. They're expensive, unreliable, and a downright pain, plus, it seems unlikely that we're going to be seeing anything faster than Gig-E anytime soon, so we're all set.
If, by some weird occurrence, fiber becomes standard sometime in the future, I can pull the rooms by cutting and tying off my 5e from the attic. I will have removed the 5e and added the fiber at the same time. No sweat.
More important than the cabling, make certain to get your primary computer room plugs on a different circuit from the rest of the room's circuit. THAT will come in handy. I have my office computer outlets and my wiring closet outlets on their own, separate circuits, and I don't feel too uncomfortable running what I want, now. Make sure you get extra outlets, too!
Oooooo! I could spent lots of money on Ertl (read: available through retail stores) models put-together by people I don't know. And George Lucas is going to tell me they're important because those people made models for HIM.
Not. This is all second-hand crap, not history. The history is in someone else's private collection.
Actually, with a gamepad, you CAN stunt. Push button 'B' (I think...someone correct me) and hold down your pad in the direction you want to spin or flip. I'm not sure what the corresponding keypresses might be.
I wonder, how good of a machine is this? As an competitive cyclist (roadie), I spent years trying to figure out the best pedaling position for myself on the bike. And before you say the traditional road bike is not necessarily the most efficient setup for energy transfer through pedals - I'm aware of it. Even though this machine could, hypothetically, be setup in such a way (with the right, stationary seating) to resemble a hyper-efficient recumbent, how many people will actually DO this? Won't most people be using (as the website shows) their couch, or god-forbid, their swiveling office chairs? Can you imagine the bouncing that will occur? And working up a good sweat in your office seating...that's NOT gonna wash out.
...as though I would go to a Comdex, anyway. The last one I attended was Spring 92, I think...Atlanta. It was large, and the porn and CDROM vendors had begun showing up in overwhelming numbers. The real COMPUTER people were always lonely, as all the geeks were crowded around the Penthouse Interactive booth, squirming and staring, or singing bad karaoke at one of the many booths that offered it.
Comdex has lost its lustre, while increasing the lust. (Not that there's anything wrong with lust...) I don't see it appealing to many but the most neophyte computer consumers. All the real industry types stick to more focused conferences. Myself, I will only attend developer conferences in my specialties, or pay for training courses with small, narrow topic coverage. The big shows are nothing but comic book conventions.
It's apparent that there is a serious misunderstanding here..NET is not "locked" to some subscription model. Rather,.NET's "My Services" is locked to the subscription model.
My Services is part of Microsoft's drive to make the Web Services - provided by MS in a centralized format - available to the developer community. Clients who need the "stability" of the Microsoft hosting and management will be able to make use of it through their annual subscription.
Developers who want to write Windows code will only have to purchase MS's development tools (Visual Studio.NET), or make use of another environment (Codewarrior, GCC, etc.). You can STILL write native code for Windows without a subscription, and you can write managed code (C#, VB, managed C++) without a subscription. You can even write your own web services without a subscription. If you want to plug into the MS My Services model, though, you pay.
It distresses me to see such poor journalism, particularly when press about.NET is already confused enough with Microsoft's TLA-of-the-week and other marketing-speak. Do a little research, people, before you start spouting off!
It depends primarily on the focus of the course itself, and the role of the university in teaching teamwork and social skills. For instance, the University of Phoenix considers the team an integral part of its learning experience, so their classes focus on the team project (including programming courses), with a part of the final grade being a grade based on your teammates' perception of you. Thus, the university really attempts to integrate the technical material with a team-based environment. Granted, the individual grades are more difficult to arrive at, but what's really the goal here? To receive a grade that is appropriately scaled within your class, or to receive a GOOD grade and learn something?
Other colleges, of course, don't follow such paths. Ga Tech and UGa both follow a more traditional course structure, where the technical material is excellent, but making use of that material in a team environment is not stressed. Only certain graduate-level courses really use teams, generally in circumstances where a professor's research project is involved. Here, of course, the technical material is MUCH, MUCH better than the UoP, but it's rarely presented in a real-world environment. Again, you just try to get something out of the course, and receive an appropriate grade.
Make up your mind that college is NOT about preparing you for reality, and it's CERTAINLY NOT about competing for silly kudos against your classmates. Pick up whatever useful you can find, then run like hell. Or, of course, just run like hell (like I did). Experience in the real world is a much better teacher than college.
Having owned droppable computers for some time, I'm really about ready for a computer that's capable of portability without the awful fragility. If this computer has some reasonable I/O method available (say, some form of attachable mini-keyboard, a la Targus), it might be usable, but it seems like just another data-collection device from its description.
Why doesn't the ruggedized PC hit the mainstream market? Walkabout has made a few nice PC's in tablet form, but their prices generally put off the buyer that has no specialized application in mind. I'd absolutely love a nice, sturdy, portable 'nix box like their HH3. Why haven't at least SOME of these ideas made it into the consumer models of laptops and the like?
You're right about Toronto. My bad. I was simply extrapolating, considering the FIRST LEVEL SUPPORT TECH SAID SHE WAS IN ONTARIO. So, I guess we both have a wrong and a right, eh?
So, my local Comcast service is going to get weird for a bit, eh? Doesn't really surprise me, considering the level of service At Home provides.
Case in point: Bad cable modem - I tested it. Called At Home, hung up on. Called back, talked to 1st level tech, who hung up on me WHILE giving me the support call no. Called back, got call no., was transferred to second level, who hung up on me. Called back, tried to get directly to second level support, 1st level tech reluctantly sent me to 2nd level, who said hello and hung up on me. Turned out it was a switching problem, and I finally got a direct number (instead of the local office number-transfer) and called back. At Home (in Toronto; I'm in Tallahassee, FL) finally decided to route a repairman to bring me a new modem...an appointment 3 weeks later. Called my local Comcast office the next day, said, "I want to swap out my cable modem." Next day? Done. No worries.
The question: Why couldn't At Home do the exact same thing?
It's funny, and I haven't actually run any times on this, but it doesn't even seem like my compiles have gotten any quicker since upgrading my Athlon 550 to a 1Ghz. I'm sure SOMETHING is faster, but I don't recall ever noticing any real difference in the overall feel of the machine. This lack of perceptive differences has really gotten me off the upgrade bandwagon for a bit. Even my 64Mb Geforce 2MX seems more than adequate for the gaming I enjoy.
Is this just a symptom of the computer finally becoming merely a commodity?
No, it's NOT the same. There's nothing to install, just a couple of radio buttons to click, AND they're already setup to prompt you before downloading signed controls and to NOT DOWNLOAD unsigned controls. This is the IE default setting.
Now, perhaps the prompt should be changed to "Do you want to download and run this bit of code on your machine? Are you sure? It could be dangerous, so you'd better have some idea who's sending it to you, even though its signed by CorporationX." Still, the current prompt isn't awful, but people just glance and click.
Actually, ActiveX is NOT a gaping security hole, assuming you're not setup to arbitrarily download and install code on your system WITHOUT knowing where it comes from and what it does. If your browser is downloading and installing controls and whatnot without your permission, change your browser settings in Tools->Internet Options->Security.
ActiveX is just a manner of encapsulating functionality with a user interface into a COM-based component. It's a whole LOT more functional than the silly Netscape Plugin API, and it's useful for more than just a browser extension (as you said). For instance, look at MSXML, do you see any XML functionality in a Netscape plugin that is usable in your own applications, merely by obeying a few binary standards and making some interface calls? Not unless you're interested in writing your own Netscape browser.
I'm not a Microsoft employee, nor do I think everything out of Redmond is gold, but as a programmer, I have to admit COM rocks.
I'm not sure if Jobs would be considered an asset or simply an ass. Read Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing, and Apple : The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders
and tell me what you think. Granted, these are rather slanted opinions of Mr. Jobs, but I've always felt he was a bit of an eccentric, egomaniac loon, rather than this golden-boy visionary he's so commonly portrayed as. Of course, this panel wasn't exactly the best resource for good opinions of Apple, either.
I think the key to remember is that Apple hired some good people in design and engineering, not necessarily management. The Apple name was built by those people, building good products in spite of the idiots upstairs. Apple matters because it was and is a good product that brought new technology to the computer user, not because it has shiny cases or a loud idiot for a CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
The new title is Programming Visual C++, as the book was continued by George Shepherd and Scot Wingo. Dave Kruglinski is still credited as author. And yes, you are correct about the accident.
I concur - Petzold is a god. In addition, though, give some consideration to Brent Rector's Win32 Programming. This book is almost unknown, but it is a far, far more cumulative reference and guide to the Win32 APIs than the last couple of editions of Petzold's book.
For MFC? The latest edition of Inside Visual C++ is called Programming Visual C++. After David Kruglinski's untimely death while hanggliding, George Shepherd and Scot Wingo took over. Their other book, MFC Internals is among the best programming books ever written, even if it IS about MFC.
The best book on COM and ATL 3.0 is Developer's Workshop to COM and ATL 3.0 by Andrew Troelsen. This book is meant for programmers, and will take you through COM in C++, then show you how to take all the shortcuts of ATL (Active Template Library). It's hardly known, but it's a really well-written book - much better than the more oft-quoted standards.
OReilly has a few good books, and Addison Wesley books are consistently good. Both companies books are generally geared to the more advanced, experienced programmer. Almost any book by one of the following authors will be useful:
Chris Sells, Don Box, Brent Rector, Mike Woodring, George Shepherd, Scot Wingo, Mike Blaszczak, Jeffrey Richter, Charles Petzold, Jeff Prosise. Starting with the books I mention, a C++ programmer can quickly begin to find his/her way about the arbitrariness that is Windows.
Of course, .NET is a monkey wrench for some developers. Rest assured that C++/ATL/COM is still there, though, and forms the best and only solution for native-code Windows programming. I can't recommend too many books for .NET - it's just too early. The Microsoft MSDN site is the best reference so far, as well as a great reference for all the rest. Best of luck!
15" to 18"? Even our local universities only have 12" Cave Astrolas (restored and maintained by the local club). Our local club members are the ones with the big scopes; the club even has a full dome on a dark site with a permanent pier.
I sure wish I lived in your area. :)
Being quite the 'nix afficionado myself, I understand some of the rather hateful sentiments expressed toward MS. I take issue with some of Mr. Schneier's (whom I greatly respect) comments, however, as being opposed to the mindset of progress.
For instance, Implementation of Microsoft SOAP, a protocol running over HTTP precisely so it could bypass firewalls, should be withdrawn.
strikes me as an ill-conceived statement. SOAP, for the uninformed, is just an XML-based protocol carried through HTTP. It doesn't BYPASS the firewall, it passes through the port generally held open for the use of web servers. We're packaging an XML envelope that a SOAP implementation can open and use, not passing some magic packet that your web server can use to format its harddrives. Firewalls can be made to use SOAP information to block SOAP packets, and servers don't have to respond to ill-formed, ill-conceived, or ill-meanings SOAP calls. How the heck can removing SOAP all-together be considered a practical security measure, anymore than simply removing the web server from the net entirely? Sure, you might get your C-2 rating, but is it worthwhile?
MS has attempted to create a high-functionality server platform, one that installs with the purpose of usability as its default. This simplifies the installation process, creating a process that relies less on the intelligence and experience of the user and more on the good nature of MS itself (as the one who created the installation system). MS does not necessarily have YOUR interests in mind, but the interests of a non-specific "user" in mind - a user whose needs profile may or may not fit your own. Microsoft needs to expand their thinking to include the needs of secure-minded individuals, granted, but the needs of ALL users should still be taken into account, and documentation created that explains the differences.
I'll be the first to admit that Windows has security issues, however, I contend that the nature of networking imposes security problems on ALL operating systems. I doubt too many persons could implement a secure 'nix OR a secure Win box. Intelligence and experience are required in both.
Can you provide some specific instance that illustrates your point? It appears to me that the backwards-compatibility bits of Win2K and XP have provided a more secure Windows environment, rather than less. For instance, the Virtual Machine used to house 16 bit Windows applications provides a sandbox for ill-behaving applications.
Backwards-compatibility is at the core of none of the current security problems currently within Win platforms - at least none of those I can bring to mind. Please, prove me wrong.
Astrophotography is one of the most frustrating hobbies around. Prepare to spend LOTS and LOTS of money, and LOTS and LOTS of time. It's great fun for the seasoned astronomer, but a beginner will probably scare him/herself out of the hobby rather quickly. I heartily recommend AGAINST diving in this particularly deep end of the pool. Again: join a club, learn the sky, THEN think about instrumentation.
I really, really can't agree with this recommendation. The 3.5 inch is a tiny, tiny scope, and really not terribly useful for astronomy, particularly in a reflector. In the case of the Celestron, you're spending far too much for the Celestron logo on the side of the tube. The mount is a piece of shit, and the scope is barely a step above a department store scope.
If you're interested in high-portability, something similar to the Meade ETX would serve you better. It's a tiny scope, but it's at least TRYING to be a good scope, and does pretty well for an inexpensive Cass.
In this range, I would DEFINITELY go with 6 to 8 inch Dob.
Amateur astronomy is an excellent, and quite rewarding, hobby. I've been an amateur astronomer, albeit a serious one, for about 15 years or so. My recommendations for every new astronomer is the same:
Far too many new astronomers enter into the field by purchasing a poor department store telescope, or conversely, purchasing an expensive instrument far beyond their capabilities and interest. Taking the time to look at the sky with your naked eyes will serve you better if you become serious about astronomy, or if you decide it's just not for you. If you just have to purchase something, check out binocular astronomy. Orion has a wide range of good binoculars for astronomy. Binoculars have a wide, rich field of view, they're extremely portable, and they have uses OTHER than astronomy. The benefits are obvious:
Good binoculars for astronomy aren't big on power, so avoid getting a big 'X' rating. What you're looking for is aperture (remember, aperture is about light-collection capability; more aperture, brighter images) 10x30 is the smallest binocular you'll find that's useful for astronomy, but an 7x30 can also be fun. 10x50 (~US$200)is about the best all-around binocular for astronomy, but 10x70s (~$300) can be found for reasonable prices these days. Orion has several nice binoculars for good prices.
Buying a telescope is another animal. I strongly recommend learning as much as you can about telescopes before purchasing one (you might even decide to build your own). Check out a book called Star Ware for an excellent description of common astronomical instruments, including a full rundown on scopes. Additionally, I would recommend searching out your local astronomical club. Astronomy clubs are generally filled with interesting people with expensive scopes and lots of good advice. You'll learn more with a club than though any other venue, and you'll get a chance to peer through those sexy scopes your wallet burns to purchase...BEFORE you buy one and have to live with it.
If you actually purchase a scope, my own preferences lean toward the Dobsonian Newtonian. (A Newtonian reflector on a Dobson mount) These things are easy on the pocketbook, have enormous apertures, and really let the beginner learn the ropes of astronomy before becoming encumbered with the automatic push-a-button-see-a-star stuff that Meade wants to sell you. You'll find lots of good stuff at Orion in the range of $300 to $500 - their 6" Skyquest Dob is currently $349. Having owned the first version of this scope, the Deep Space Explorer, I recommend this scope wholeheartedly for a first scope. Buy this and spend the rest on eyepieces (a subject I shan't broach) for a really fun scope that will serve you for years. It's portable (sorta bulky, but portable), big, clean, and perfect to get your feet wet.
Feel free to contact me if you have questions. I have LOTS of opinions that I generally dole out for free. :) Have fun!
Being a native Georgian (southwest Georgian for that matter...Albany - a REAL backwater), and a comparatively savvy technogeek, I am filled with horror. These idiot lawyers are going to do everything they can to make a name for themselves in whatever context they consider important, intelligence be damned. Of course, if in doing so, they drag the name of Georgia back into the yeehaw days (Gawrsh, Goober, that there computey-thang shor is makin' them nekkid wimmens look purty an' all. Gimme a chaw.), they don't care.
Georgia is full of intelligent, growing technologists - startups, academics, and all-around geeks. These barristers' motives are pure old-fashioned power plays, making a name for themselves and wielding power over those who don't respect them. Please don't consider all of us Georgians hicks; we geeks live in a meritocracy separate from these backwater jackasses we elect or appoint to office.
Ignore these ranting loonies...
Wire what you WANT, and then add an extra run to your office, your wife's office, and behind your televisions. Don't forget the kitchen.
My new house was completed last April, and I've got 5e drops (2 or more per room) with a 100M switch in the "wiring closet" - an extra room in our attic. We considered fiber, too, but realized that fiber connections are just the flakiest things in the world. They're expensive, unreliable, and a downright pain, plus, it seems unlikely that we're going to be seeing anything faster than Gig-E anytime soon, so we're all set.
If, by some weird occurrence, fiber becomes standard sometime in the future, I can pull the rooms by cutting and tying off my 5e from the attic. I will have removed the 5e and added the fiber at the same time. No sweat.
More important than the cabling, make certain to get your primary computer room plugs on a different circuit from the rest of the room's circuit. THAT will come in handy. I have my office computer outlets and my wiring closet outlets on their own, separate circuits, and I don't feel too uncomfortable running what I want, now. Make sure you get extra outlets, too!
Oooooo! I could spent lots of money on Ertl (read: available through retail stores) models put-together by people I don't know. And George Lucas is going to tell me they're important because those people made models for HIM.
Not. This is all second-hand crap, not history. The history is in someone else's private collection.
Two words:
vagina, sheep.
Hellooooooooo, Dolly!
Actually, with a gamepad, you CAN stunt. Push button 'B' (I think...someone correct me) and hold down your pad in the direction you want to spin or flip. I'm not sure what the corresponding keypresses might be.
I wonder, how good of a machine is this? As an competitive cyclist (roadie), I spent years trying to figure out the best pedaling position for myself on the bike. And before you say the traditional road bike is not necessarily the most efficient setup for energy transfer through pedals - I'm aware of it. Even though this machine could, hypothetically, be setup in such a way (with the right, stationary seating) to resemble a hyper-efficient recumbent, how many people will actually DO this? Won't most people be using (as the website shows) their couch, or god-forbid, their swiveling office chairs? Can you imagine the bouncing that will occur? And working up a good sweat in your office seating...that's NOT gonna wash out.
...for this "simcycle" is here [elonton.com].
...as though I would go to a Comdex, anyway. The last one I attended was Spring 92, I think...Atlanta. It was large, and the porn and CDROM vendors had begun showing up in overwhelming numbers. The real COMPUTER people were always lonely, as all the geeks were crowded around the Penthouse Interactive booth, squirming and staring, or singing bad karaoke at one of the many booths that offered it.
Comdex has lost its lustre, while increasing the lust. (Not that there's anything wrong with lust...) I don't see it appealing to many but the most neophyte computer consumers. All the real industry types stick to more focused conferences. Myself, I will only attend developer conferences in my specialties, or pay for training courses with small, narrow topic coverage. The big shows are nothing but comic book conventions.
It's apparent that there is a serious misunderstanding here. .NET is not "locked" to some subscription model. Rather, .NET's "My Services" is locked to the subscription model.
.NET), or make use of another environment (Codewarrior, GCC, etc.). You can STILL write native code for Windows without a subscription, and you can write managed code (C#, VB, managed C++) without a subscription. You can even write your own web services without a subscription. If you want to plug into the MS My Services model, though, you pay.
.NET is already confused enough with Microsoft's TLA-of-the-week and other marketing-speak. Do a little research, people, before you start spouting off!
My Services is part of Microsoft's drive to make the Web Services - provided by MS in a centralized format - available to the developer community. Clients who need the "stability" of the Microsoft hosting and management will be able to make use of it through their annual subscription.
Developers who want to write Windows code will only have to purchase MS's development tools (Visual Studio
It distresses me to see such poor journalism, particularly when press about
It depends primarily on the focus of the course itself, and the role of the university in teaching teamwork and social skills. For instance, the University of Phoenix considers the team an integral part of its learning experience, so their classes focus on the team project (including programming courses), with a part of the final grade being a grade based on your teammates' perception of you. Thus, the university really attempts to integrate the technical material with a team-based environment. Granted, the individual grades are more difficult to arrive at, but what's really the goal here? To receive a grade that is appropriately scaled within your class, or to receive a GOOD grade and learn something?
Other colleges, of course, don't follow such paths. Ga Tech and UGa both follow a more traditional course structure, where the technical material is excellent, but making use of that material in a team environment is not stressed. Only certain graduate-level courses really use teams, generally in circumstances where a professor's research project is involved. Here, of course, the technical material is MUCH, MUCH better than the UoP, but it's rarely presented in a real-world environment. Again, you just try to get something out of the course, and receive an appropriate grade.
Make up your mind that college is NOT about preparing you for reality, and it's CERTAINLY NOT about competing for silly kudos against your classmates. Pick up whatever useful you can find, then run like hell. Or, of course, just run like hell (like I did). Experience in the real world is a much better teacher than college.
Having owned droppable computers for some time, I'm really about ready for a computer that's capable of portability without the awful fragility. If this computer has some reasonable I/O method available (say, some form of attachable mini-keyboard, a la Targus), it might be usable, but it seems like just another data-collection device from its description.
Why doesn't the ruggedized PC hit the mainstream market? Walkabout has made a few nice PC's in tablet form, but their prices generally put off the buyer that has no specialized application in mind. I'd absolutely love a nice, sturdy, portable 'nix box like their HH3. Why haven't at least SOME of these ideas made it into the consumer models of laptops and the like?
You're right about Toronto. My bad. I was simply extrapolating, considering the FIRST LEVEL SUPPORT TECH SAID SHE WAS IN ONTARIO. So, I guess we both have a wrong and a right, eh?
So, my local Comcast service is going to get weird for a bit, eh? Doesn't really surprise me, considering the level of service At Home provides.
Case in point: Bad cable modem - I tested it. Called At Home, hung up on. Called back, talked to 1st level tech, who hung up on me WHILE giving me the support call no. Called back, got call no., was transferred to second level, who hung up on me. Called back, tried to get directly to second level support, 1st level tech reluctantly sent me to 2nd level, who said hello and hung up on me. Turned out it was a switching problem, and I finally got a direct number (instead of the local office number-transfer) and called back. At Home (in Toronto; I'm in Tallahassee, FL) finally decided to route a repairman to bring me a new modem...an appointment 3 weeks later. Called my local Comcast office the next day, said, "I want to swap out my cable modem." Next day? Done. No worries.
The question: Why couldn't At Home do the exact same thing?
It's funny, and I haven't actually run any times on this, but it doesn't even seem like my compiles have gotten any quicker since upgrading my Athlon 550 to a 1Ghz. I'm sure SOMETHING is faster, but I don't recall ever noticing any real difference in the overall feel of the machine. This lack of perceptive differences has really gotten me off the upgrade bandwagon for a bit. Even my 64Mb Geforce 2MX seems more than adequate for the gaming I enjoy.
Is this just a symptom of the computer finally becoming merely a commodity?
No, it's NOT the same. There's nothing to install, just a couple of radio buttons to click, AND they're already setup to prompt you before downloading signed controls and to NOT DOWNLOAD unsigned controls. This is the IE default setting.
Now, perhaps the prompt should be changed to "Do you want to download and run this bit of code on your machine? Are you sure? It could be dangerous, so you'd better have some idea who's sending it to you, even though its signed by CorporationX." Still, the current prompt isn't awful, but people just glance and click.
Actually, ActiveX is NOT a gaping security hole, assuming you're not setup to arbitrarily download and install code on your system WITHOUT knowing where it comes from and what it does. If your browser is downloading and installing controls and whatnot without your permission, change your browser settings in Tools->Internet Options->Security.
ActiveX is just a manner of encapsulating functionality with a user interface into a COM-based component. It's a whole LOT more functional than the silly Netscape Plugin API, and it's useful for more than just a browser extension (as you said). For instance, look at MSXML, do you see any XML functionality in a Netscape plugin that is usable in your own applications, merely by obeying a few binary standards and making some interface calls? Not unless you're interested in writing your own Netscape browser.
I'm not a Microsoft employee, nor do I think everything out of Redmond is gold, but as a programmer, I have to admit COM rocks.
What NeXT had was Steve Jobs.
I'm not sure if Jobs would be considered an asset or simply an ass . Read Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing, and Apple : The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders and tell me what you think. Granted, these are rather slanted opinions of Mr. Jobs, but I've always felt he was a bit of an eccentric, egomaniac loon, rather than this golden-boy visionary he's so commonly portrayed as. Of course, this panel wasn't exactly the best resource for good opinions of Apple, either.
I think the key to remember is that Apple hired some good people in design and engineering, not necessarily management. The Apple name was built by those people, building good products in spite of the idiots upstairs. Apple matters because it was and is a good product that brought new technology to the computer user, not because it has shiny cases or a loud idiot for a CEO.