Yes, most tech support calls are caused by idiot users, but not necessarily in the case of cable modem service.
Over here in Ishpeming Michigan, we have Bresnanlink (or now called Charter Link). It's down about once or twice a week for a few hours--but they at least admit the server is FU&*$U# up!
Our service is slow, the connection is unreliable, but most people don't know to expect more (they think 40KB/s is just dandy) and it's readily accepted the company sucks.
@Home could just take some responsibility and admit it sucks too.
I never thought Gore claimed credit for the technical work involved in the invention of the internet. I was just surprised he said he had anything to do with it's beginning, since it was invented in the 40's.
There were several important stages in the development of the internet--the latest of which is the web--but Gore can not claim (with any level of truthfullness) that he was even there during the beginning.
Re:The function of an operating system...
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
Just nitpicking...
BeOS is great at sharing many CPU's. It's probibly the best at managing SMP for a few processors.
Every application--even the BeOS "notepad" is multi-threaded by default. In fact, when programming for BeOS, the skeleton program is multi-threaded.
I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.</i>
You *are* kidding right? Gore wants to continue abortion and require licensing of guns (if not a ban)... Does anyone want the metaphore of crapping down this countries throat? I didn't think so.
(I suppose if we kill the children off now, before they're born, we might counter the increase in crime once guns are banned. Less people==less crime either way...)
Bush is an idiot--given. Gore is a liar--given. Who do we vote for? I don't really care anymore.
In the Simpsons universe, we'd have mayor Quimby right now and a choice between Homer and Mr. Burns. I'd rather vote for Lisa, Marge, Dr. Hibbert, Sideshow Bob or even that comic book guy. But no.
Maybe we should just give up on this country and start a colony on mars. Maybe something based on Libertarian political philosophies and reason--like America was long ago. In a new colony we might prevent things from getting this bad.
Does anyone care that no need is evident that children need protection from any content online?
A breast does not disturb anyone but parents.
I grew up on naked women being ripped to peices by monsters. I'd like to say I'm normal, but I'm not--I'm better than normal. I'm more calm than others, more reasonable, and just more perfect in every possible way.:-) If viewing "disturbing" content has done anything to me, it's made me a more balenced, upright citizen.
Of course, on the other side of things, there are people who never were allowed to see even Kung Fu movies; and believe me--these people aren't normal.
**We need to protect children from unreasonable, illogical, irrational and overly-emotional "save the children" campaigns. They exist only because of emotionally disturbed parents and weasily politicians who want to say "I actually <I>do</I> care about children!"
Here at NMU, the computer labs were ripped out, laptops where forced down our throats for $400 a month, and the college saves by not having labs while making a hefty profit on the over-priced laptops.
The NMU President just got a 45,000(?) bonus for her "good work." Yeah, she's doing this for us...
I attend NMU--and the laptop program bites.
It's $400 a semester, $2000 if you do the minimum: 2 yrs. lease + 500 purchase, and about $3000 if you just let the lease continue for 4 years (in which case you give it back). (Over-paying.)
You get no choice in the laptop--it's a NMU supplied IBM 1200. If you remove Windows, or Office, etc.... that's $500 to put it back.
You CAN NOT opt out. You can not purchase another in it's place. Two students in the same home must each get their own. If you return it unopened and unused, you still pay.
I'm a CS major--who hasn't used my laptop yet!! I have no use for it, but I'm paying my $2000.
And nevermind the price! What about not letting us choose our own laptops? Why can't I just buy my own VIAO? Or use my perfectly fine desktop, which I'm still using for all my schoolwork.
The line is: "If we were explosed to computers when we were younger, more of us would be Geeks."
I agree--but what's wrong with it right now?
If I were exposed to aircraft when I was younger, I might be a pilot right now. If I were exposed to atheletics I might be an ethelete. If I was put in the kitchen more often, I might be a chef. I'm not crying about it.
I don't care about what might have been. I'm happy with what I'm doing--and if I wasn't, I'd find something I <i>am</i> happy with. I could be the president, a scientist, a lawyer, a teacher if my past was different, but I had fair opportunity to *find* my interest on my own--I didn't need each career spoon-fed to me so I could pick and choose. I have the ability to seek out my interests.
Women are not prevented from getting involved with computers. And as long as everyone has the opportunity to find and do what they like, it's fair.
"and being smart just means you get to see how being popular is more important"
please tell me that's a typo...
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
P.S. More specifically, I'm a weak atheist or agnostic--and I've found that the Bible is a valuable moral and philosophical resource despite God's possible lack of existence. And I believe that his (or its) possible existence is of no serious consequence until you die--and that's a personal matter.
And if I seemed a little defensive (or too offensive), it's because I've seen far too many extreme atheists--those who debate academic matters with religious conviction, who harass those with a faith, and those who join the crowd because it's just the "free-thinking" thing to do--without actually thinking about it at all.
I've spoken to several who believe things like this: "Hey, I'm free thinking! I guess I must be an atheist. Good thing I don't just do what my society pressures me too..." And they say this: 1) With pressure to comply to this image. 2) Not to be made fun of / stereotyped. 3) Without exercising this "free-thinking" mentality they supposedly prize.
... end rant.
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
actually i'm an athiest
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Well, religions don't require you to kiss any God's ass... That's not what praying is.
A better story would be about a guy who dictates a guide filled with helpfull advice for adults, and stories to get moral messages across to the kids. This guide advises things like living in peace, getting along, not eating pork because pigs were diseased way back then, etc.
Later on, some followers of the guide find followers of another guide that says just about the same thing.
"What? We can't have that!" they say. "We follow a book that preaches better peace than yours!"
And so one group of followers kills the other to prove how much more peacefull they are. Though they broke about 200 rules in the process, they think they did right.
Later, science gets its start and people start to say: "Hey! This planet is a ball-like thing!" Even though the guide implies such a thing is true, these people are killed for contradicting the guide--and contradicting the guide is a danger to the peace it preaches.
(The same happens when people say: "Hey! Those stars are like the sun, man. And they've got planets like ours!" and "Could there be other people, not of this world?")
And then, after the followers have killed a lot of people in the name of peace and harmony, the guide starts to get the image of being a bad thing. And those who don't like the guide want it destroyed because its preachings of peace always get somebody killed.
They start by arguing that since its said to be thought up by some mystery guy who dictated it, we just bring in to question his existance. Many are tricked by this.
Their thoughts follow: "Well, if he didn't exist, and I don't think he did, than all this preaching peace must be worthless--and I already know that preaching peace is deadly."
I could create life, design my own new universe, and modify the future evolution of animals and I'm still <b>not</b> playing God. Strictly speaking, the single qualification for really playing God is controlling the outcome of souls (heaven or hell).<p> Second: Can do = will do.<br> I'm a trans-humanist and I believe that any technology that can aid humanity should be used in (at least) an effort to do so. I don't mind adding wings to my son or trying to increase intelligence or attempting to create the "perfect" person. Third: Yeah, it can go wrong...<br> I admit that some parents may make bad decisions when designing their children--midgets for humor, sex slaves for sale, etc.--but so long that these people can lead a life they enjoy (and you may be able to modify what people enjoy--which is scary) I'm fine with it.
OOPS! That last one didn't turn out quite right... Hope this is better.
It seems to me, being a high school student, that our public schools are horribly %$@#'d up.
For example: Our math is taught by memorizing algorithms and abandoning any real understanding of mathematics and the mallibility and relationships of numbers, our english abandons grammer and style, the computer classes are taught, as mine was, by people who think that old files "evaporate into a pool of liquid under the computer," the cliche saying about history repeating itself is ignored as our history classes teach trivial facts filtered through censores of political correctness--any lessons of conflict, war, human rights, or philosophies are shunned. Ask any high school student how totalitarian governments gain power. They will ignorantly say "force" and doom themselves.
Our citizens are supposed to be educated enough to be at least intelligent voters, but they are now unable to detect even the most obvious sophestry. Basic logic and analitical thinking are ignored as the need for these skills increases.
But it can be saved.
My advanced chemistry class is being taught by a good teacher. He has a masters degree in nuclear physics and has made more in a day prior to teaching than since. He's almost sixty years old now and is working for a few months as a substitute teacher for about five dollars a day. He is different--he can actually *teach* us and get us to think.
He uses his own strict rules for dicipline. The work is hard, but he'll explain it all. There are NO labs, no extra credit, no makeup assignments, no calculators, and we learn what we're doing. Not only is he the best teacher we've had, he's the only one we can apply the title of "teacher" to.
Most importantly, he's abandoned the rule of teaching to the middle. This rule is responsible for most of our educational problems. When you ignore the lower end, they become dissatisfied and lose interest and confidence. When you ignore the high end, they either become restless and cause trouble or they simply lower their standards--going for the best grade with least effort. What you end up with is an incredibly average group of students with minds large and small being stuffed into the same mold.
We need more good teachers. We can't rely on a few educated people who've sacrificed decent pay to teach. Our books need to be re-designed--less fluff, less political correctness, less pictures, less irrelevent and mis-guided history, less busy work and more time to think. Our students need some minimal rights. At the moment they have rights comparible to prisoners of war. (How will they respect and uphold rights they've been told they can't be trusted with?) They need a educational system that continually focusses them on more and more specific areas of study as they advance through the schools.
Computers are another interesting thing. A lot of money is in computers and a lot of jobs like experience. A lot of poor and minorities want equal computer opportunities. But have you heard about how large scientific projects are sometimes finished earlier by starting later, since technology advances as such a fast rate. If the poor want computers, tell them not to buy them now. They'll be better off if they wait. But they say "I'll be left behind in understanding. It's all happening so fast!" Well, that's the great thing. The longer you wait, the easier it is to start--it just keeps getting easier.
But most importantly, we can't just teach past events and say the lessons of history have been transferred to our students, we can't repeat some algorithms and say our students know math, we can't say our kids are good students because they have an "A"--which was reached with extra credit. And we can't expect computers will make it all better.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush is a Democrat (as much as Clinton was a Republican) and Gore is a Socialist. So what?
The libertarian party has a much better web page than the Socialist party.
Yes, most tech support calls are caused by idiot users, but not necessarily in the case of cable modem service.
Over here in Ishpeming Michigan, we have Bresnanlink (or now called Charter Link). It's down about once or twice a week for a few hours--but they at least admit the server is FU&*$U# up!
Our service is slow, the connection is unreliable, but most people don't know to expect more (they think 40KB/s is just dandy) and it's readily accepted the company sucks.
@Home could just take some responsibility and admit it sucks too.
I never thought Gore claimed credit for the technical work involved in the invention of the internet. I was just surprised he said he had anything to do with it's beginning, since it was invented in the 40's.
There were several important stages in the development of the internet--the latest of which is the web--but Gore can not claim (with any level of truthfullness) that he was even there during the beginning.
Just nitpicking...
BeOS is great at sharing many CPU's. It's probibly the best at managing SMP for a few processors.
Every application--even the BeOS "notepad" is multi-threaded by default. In fact, when programming for BeOS, the skeleton program is multi-threaded.
I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.</i>
You *are* kidding right? Gore wants to continue abortion and require licensing of guns (if not a ban)... Does anyone want the metaphore of crapping down this countries throat? I didn't think so.
(I suppose if we kill the children off now, before they're born, we might counter the increase in crime once guns are banned. Less people==less crime either way...)
Bush is an idiot--given. Gore is a liar--given. Who do we vote for? I don't really care anymore.
In the Simpsons universe, we'd have mayor Quimby right now and a choice between Homer and Mr. Burns. I'd rather vote for Lisa, Marge, Dr. Hibbert, Sideshow Bob or even that comic book guy. But no.
Maybe we should just give up on this country and start a colony on mars. Maybe something based on Libertarian political philosophies and reason--like America was long ago. In a new colony we might prevent things from getting this bad.
Does anyone care that no need is evident that children need protection from any content online?
:-) If viewing "disturbing" content has done anything to me, it's made me a more balenced, upright citizen.
A breast does not disturb anyone but parents.
I grew up on naked women being ripped to peices by monsters. I'd like to say I'm normal, but I'm not--I'm better than normal. I'm more calm than others, more reasonable, and just more perfect in every possible way.
Of course, on the other side of things, there are people who never were allowed to see even Kung Fu movies; and believe me--these people aren't normal.
**We need to protect children from unreasonable, illogical, irrational and overly-emotional "save the children" campaigns. They exist only because of emotionally disturbed parents and weasily politicians who want to say "I actually <I>do</I> care about children!"
-month
+semester
Here at NMU, the computer labs were ripped out, laptops where forced down our throats for $400 a month, and the college saves by not having labs while making a hefty profit on the over-priced laptops.
The NMU President just got a 45,000(?) bonus for her "good work." Yeah, she's doing this for us...
Northern laptops aren't sponsered. You pay about 115% for them.
I'm a *CS* major and I'm pissed!
Didn't MIT just ban laptops last year?
I heard they required them once and could't take it anymore--too much trouble.
I attend NMU--and the laptop program bites. It's $400 a semester, $2000 if you do the minimum: 2 yrs. lease + 500 purchase, and about $3000 if you just let the lease continue for 4 years (in which case you give it back). (Over-paying.) You get no choice in the laptop--it's a NMU supplied IBM 1200. If you remove Windows, or Office, etc.... that's $500 to put it back. You CAN NOT opt out. You can not purchase another in it's place. Two students in the same home must each get their own. If you return it unopened and unused, you still pay. I'm a CS major--who hasn't used my laptop yet!! I have no use for it, but I'm paying my $2000. And nevermind the price! What about not letting us choose our own laptops? Why can't I just buy my own VIAO? Or use my perfectly fine desktop, which I'm still using for all my schoolwork.
"Yes, RH 7.0 is worse than win2k bugwise..."
Oh?
Love often complains about the music industry and stages weird actions to show it. This looks like another one of her complaints.
She's just saying, "If the suit is to give us, the artists, our money back--why don't we get any of it?"
We don't have to pass new laws... just repeal the DMCA and the like.
The government doesn't just do a bad job of warding off corporate power, it makes an active effort to help it prosper.
The line is: "If we were explosed to computers when we were younger, more of us would be Geeks."
I agree--but what's wrong with it right now?
If I were exposed to aircraft when I was younger, I might be a pilot right now. If I were exposed to atheletics I might be an ethelete. If I was put in the kitchen more often, I might be a chef. I'm not crying about it.
I don't care about what might have been. I'm happy with what I'm doing--and if I wasn't, I'd find something I <i>am</i> happy with. I could be the president, a scientist, a lawyer, a teacher if my past was different, but I had fair opportunity to *find* my interest on my own--I didn't need each career spoon-fed to me so I could pick and choose. I have the ability to seek out my interests.
Women are not prevented from getting involved with computers. And as long as everyone has the opportunity to find and do what they like, it's fair.
"and being smart just means you get to see how being popular is more important"
please tell me that's a typo...
P.S. More specifically, I'm a weak atheist or agnostic--and I've found that the Bible is a valuable moral and philosophical resource despite God's possible lack of existence. And I believe that his (or its) possible existence is of no serious consequence until you die--and that's a personal matter.
And if I seemed a little defensive (or too offensive), it's because I've seen far too many extreme atheists--those who debate academic matters with religious conviction, who harass those with a faith, and those who join the crowd because it's just the "free-thinking" thing to do--without actually thinking about it at all.
I've spoken to several who believe things like this: "Hey, I'm free thinking! I guess I must be an atheist. Good thing I don't just do what my society pressures me too..." And they say this:
1) With pressure to comply to this image.
2) Not to be made fun of / stereotyped.
3) Without exercising this "free-thinking" mentality they supposedly prize.
... end rant.
actually i'm an athiest
Well, religions don't require you to kiss any God's ass... That's not what praying is.
A better story would be about a guy who dictates a guide filled with helpfull advice for adults, and stories to get moral messages across to the kids. This guide advises things like living in peace, getting along, not eating pork because pigs were diseased way back then, etc.
Later on, some followers of the guide find followers of another guide that says just about the same thing.
"What? We can't have that!" they say.
"We follow a book that preaches better peace than yours!"
And so one group of followers kills the other to prove how much more peacefull they are. Though they broke about 200 rules in the process, they think they did right.
Later, science gets its start and people start to say: "Hey! This planet is a ball-like thing!"
Even though the guide implies such a thing is true, these people are killed for contradicting the guide--and contradicting the guide is a danger to the peace it preaches.
(The same happens when people say: "Hey! Those stars are like the sun, man. And they've got planets like ours!" and "Could there be other people, not of this world?")
And then, after the followers have killed a lot of people in the name of peace and harmony, the guide starts to get the image of being a bad thing. And those who don't like the guide want it destroyed because its preachings of peace always get somebody killed.
They start by arguing that since its said to be thought up by some mystery guy who dictated it, we just bring in to question his existance. Many are tricked by this.
Their thoughts follow: "Well, if he didn't exist, and I don't think he did, than all this preaching peace must be worthless--and I already know that preaching peace is deadly."
And this is where we are now.
--Wasn't that a much better story?--
First: God.
I could create life, design my own new universe, and modify the future evolution of animals and I'm still <b>not</b> playing God. Strictly speaking, the single qualification for really playing God is controlling the outcome of souls (heaven or hell).<p>
Second: Can do = will do.<br>
I'm a trans-humanist and I believe that any technology that can aid humanity should be used in (at least) an effort to do so. I don't mind adding wings to my son or trying to increase intelligence or attempting to create the "perfect" person.
Third: Yeah, it can go wrong...<br>
I admit that some parents may make bad decisions when designing their children--midgets for humor, sex slaves for sale, etc.--but so long that these people can lead a life they enjoy (and you may be able to modify what people enjoy--which is scary) I'm fine with it.
I seem to remember that the 400Mhz Crusoe was meant for Linux while the 700Mhz one was for Windows. That would imply that this runs Lunux.
So, how fast will Si chips get?
OOPS! That last one didn't turn out quite right... Hope this is better.
It seems to me, being a high school student, that our public schools are horribly %$@#'d up.
For example: Our math is taught by memorizing algorithms and abandoning any real understanding of mathematics and the mallibility and relationships of numbers, our english abandons grammer and style, the computer classes are taught, as mine was, by people who think that old files "evaporate into a pool of liquid under the computer," the cliche saying about history repeating itself is ignored as our history classes teach trivial facts filtered through censores of political correctness--any lessons of conflict, war, human rights, or philosophies are shunned. Ask any high school student how totalitarian governments gain power. They will ignorantly say "force" and doom themselves.
Our citizens are supposed to be educated enough to be at least intelligent voters, but they are now unable to detect even the most obvious sophestry. Basic logic and analitical thinking are ignored as the need for these skills increases.
But it can be saved.
My advanced chemistry class is being taught by a good teacher. He has a masters degree in nuclear physics and has made more in a day prior to teaching than since. He's almost sixty years old now and is working for a few months as a substitute teacher for about five dollars a day. He is different--he can actually *teach* us and get us to think.
He uses his own strict rules for dicipline. The work is hard, but he'll explain it all. There are NO labs, no extra credit, no makeup assignments, no calculators, and we learn what we're doing. Not only is he the best teacher we've had, he's the only one we can apply the title of "teacher" to.
Most importantly, he's abandoned the rule of teaching to the middle. This rule is responsible for most of our educational problems. When you ignore the lower end, they become dissatisfied and lose interest and confidence. When you ignore the high end, they either become restless and cause trouble or they simply lower their standards--going for the best grade with least effort. What you end up with is an incredibly average group of students with minds large and small being stuffed into the same mold.
We need more good teachers. We can't rely on a few educated people who've sacrificed decent pay to teach. Our books need to be re-designed--less fluff, less political correctness, less pictures, less irrelevent and mis-guided history, less busy work and more time to think. Our students need some minimal rights. At the moment they have rights comparible to prisoners of war. (How will they respect and uphold rights they've been told they can't be trusted with?) They need a educational system that continually focusses them on more and more specific areas of study as they advance through the schools.
Computers are another interesting thing. A lot of money is in computers and a lot of jobs like experience. A lot of poor and minorities want equal computer opportunities. But have you heard about how large scientific projects are sometimes finished earlier by starting later, since technology advances as such a fast rate. If the poor want computers, tell them not to buy them now. They'll be better off if they wait. But they say "I'll be left behind in understanding. It's all happening so fast!" Well, that's the great thing. The longer you wait, the easier it is to start--it just keeps getting easier.
But most importantly, we can't just teach past events and say the lessons of history have been transferred to our students, we can't repeat some algorithms and say our students know math, we can't say our kids are good students because they have an "A"--which was reached with extra credit. And we can't expect computers will make it all better.