Why, exactly, is having QWERTY keyboards a bad thing?
Sure, there are variations. Split key keyboards, the funky vertical keyboards, and the Microsoft Ergonomic keyboard, the best keyboard of all time (I have four).
But, all of these keyboards have QWERTY, despite the objections of many who think that there's a better way.
This is really a lesson in interface design. An interface becomes embedded in the subconscious quickly, and it's hard to change once it's in place.
This is why steering wheels, and brake and accelerator pedals haven't changed much in 100 years.
The keyboard and the mouse are the true interface to modern computers. It's not really Windows, Linux, and OSX, it's the damn things that you put hand to in order to make your computer work.
The UI has gone through about 15 years of evolution, but will eventually stop evolving. Keyboard design has been mostly stagnent, and the changes that are made after the first couple of years are usually the result of new technology (examples: Function keys, mouse wheels, fixed macro buttons (e-mail, calculator, etc.).
The UI (the on the screen) should be the same way too. Making radical changes to the UI - changes that seem to take place with every iteration of Windows or Apple's OS, confuse users and make things more difficult. In theory, these UI's should evolve into something more or less constant. The problem with this, of course, is economics and the needs of marketing. Hopefully, people will eventually come to recognize that they don't need a new version of Word this year, or most any other year.
That dog is Gammy the lovable gamma-irradiated mutt. There's supposed to be a great scene where the dog chases a group of 19th century cowboy re-creationists driving a chuck wagon.
I for one prefer the CGI Hulk to the Lou Ferrigno Hulk if only for the fact that they can now make the Hulk the right size. The Hulk is supposed to be HUGE, and by huge I mean much larger than a muscle-bound body builder.
I would imagine that one of the reasons why Bill Bixby played Dr. David Banner in the Hulk TV series was that he was a pretty little guy - the transformation of him into the Hulk would be a bit more believeable because of the size difference between Bixby and Ferrigno.
And yes, for you sticklers out there, I did mean to say David Banner. The TV series, for some inexplicable reason, didn't want to use the comic character's name of Bruce Banner.
I do find it interesting, however, that viewing the trailer, the origion of the Hulk borrows more from the TV series than the comic book. In the original story, Bruce Banner was caught in a nuclear explosion. They could have used this - maybe moved the test side to underground, but didn't. Oh well.
Maybe they'll eventually remake the "Trial of the Incredible Hulk" TV movie where attorney Matt Murdock represents David Banner in his criminal trial.
Well, a recordable DVD would be nice. But how many of you really really want to record the evening news to DVD? I not stupid - I see the utility of this, but as a Tivo owner, I really haven't suffered that much for not being able to record to DVD. 35 hours is enough for me right now, and I can upgrade cheaply to over 100 hours. Also, recording Tivo to DVD, especially at digital quality, would certainly raise the ire of Hollywood. Tivo doesn't need to fight this battle now, when they are already fighting a battle over commerical skipping.
Let's be realistic. In the suborbital module, there's going to a pilot, and maybe one guy to monitor the oxygen system. So there will be one or two passengers in the module (suborbiter?) who will be little more than cargo.
So who wants a ride? Who should we send?
I nominate Wil Wheaton. He's not that tall, or heavy, and he would make a much better passenger than Justin Timberlake.
Or, for God's sake, Paramount could send up one of their actors with a small camera, and could even film the flight as yet another stupid "time travel" episode. Why not send that Vulcan chick into space? Sure beats ordinary special effects. She'd also set new records for the largest breasts at the highest altitude. We owe it to science.
There is a certain amount of sense to the idea of restricting scientific research. Larry Niven's early-Tales of Known Space charactor "Gil Hamilton" worked for a UN agency called the A.R.M. that, amongst other things, suppressed scientific research - keeping the results for themselves in case "secret weapons" were needed in the future.
It's in interesting philosophical question that has been around for a very long time. On one hand, the Catholic Church suppressed Galileo. Nobel invented dynamite, and as a result a lot of people died.
On the other hand, information about nuclear physics and the technology to build nuclear reactors (good) and nuclear weapons (bad) has been suppressed, with limited success, by those countries already in the Nuclear Club. As a result, so far, the terrorists have not yet (we hope) obtained nuclear weapons. September 11th could have been much, much worse if Al Quaeda had the "Islamic Bomb".
In fact, the ARM reminds me of the efforts of the US Government in suppressing cryptographic technology - classifying it as weaponry. And I can't say that the US is wrong. US efforts in breaking the Japanese codes were as responsible for the US victory at Midway as the Navy pilots themselves.
Yes, information wants to be free. So do children, but only irresponsible parents allow their children to run about unattended.
However, I feel that attempts to self-censor or otherwise suppress scientific research are doomed to failure. Information still wants to be free, and anyone who has ever watched "Connections" knows that science doesn't take logical paths - any innovation, however innocent, can result in something very very dangerous.
I'll second this. I have one of those 19" flat screen Sony Trinitrons with the silver case that doesn't have an ordinary monitor swivel mount, and I love it. It works well, it's easy to use, and it's reliable. It's big and bulky, but it's the best monitor I've ever had.
...was the gom jabbar. The applicant places his hand inside of a pain inducer while a Bene Gesserit witch holds a the gom jabbar to his or her neck. If the applicant removes his or her hand from the box in response to the pain, the highly poisonous and pointy gom jabbar is used and the applicant dies. If the applicant does not remove his or her hand from the box despite the pain, the applicant passes and is considered human. Frank Herbert's theory is that the test of being a human is that a human's intellect allows the human to act in an intelligent manner despite strong animalistic urges to act otherwise. Compared to this, Turing's test seems simplistic - pretend well enough to be a human, and you'll be a human.
It is ironic, however, that a computer would pass the gom jabbar more readily than a homo sapiens. However, both tests start with an implicit principal assumption: A definition as to what a human is. Many of us here (not to single out/. readers) would not pass as human to the Bene Gesserit. Some may not pass as human to Turing. The question we have to answer before developing a test for intelligence isn't whether or not a computer can be intelligent, but rather what exactly is intelligence. Turing's test is little more than a "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck" test. Is that enough? I really don't think that it is. A true intelligence ought to be able to act in an inspired, creative, and perhaps even irrational manner. Many of the things we do are not entirely rational, including much of the partisan discussion concerning various OS's.
and that's why printers don't work as well as they used to. In the past, printers were sold at a profit. Now, printers are sold near cost, maybe even below cost, and more of the profit is made on the consumables, such as inkjet cartridges and special inkjet paper. Since the manufacturers are no longer making money off of the printers themselves, it's in their interest to minimize the production cost of the printers. Minimal production cost = mimimal quality and reliability.
I understand what you are saying. It's pretty ironic. The US is being blamed for intervening in Iraq and is also being blamed for not for intervening in Argentina. The US has been regularly criticized for its "paternalistic" attidude towards Centeral and South America and yet is also criticized for failing to act in a paternalistic manner. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. We should have removed the military government of Argentina but God forbid the US take on Fidel Castro (who has recently instigated yet another massive crackdown on dissent).
Economy crashing: Why? Because of Enron, Global Crossing, and the dotcom crash - none of which were caused by Bush.
Questionable and bloody war for oil - you are correct on this at least. We certainly wouldn't be in Iraq if it were not for Bush. But it hasn't been that bloody, yet.
Same people who bolstered Saddam? So what. Does this mean we should have supported Saddam in 1990-1991 because he was somehow the product of our will? If so, then why didn't he follow orders?
Bush administration silencing political critics? Who? Name one. Name one person who has been prevented from voicing his opinion. Sure, there's Martin Sheen, but he duct-taped his own mouth shut. Sure, Bush and the administration has been criticizing as unpatriotic people opposed to their policies. But they have the same First Amendment right of free speech as you do.
And as for Palestine, remember last year when a shipload of arms was discovered - arms that the Palestinian authority agreed not to have? I suppose, it's Bush's fault that they were cheating, and it's Bush's fault that the Israelis overreact.
And finally, what on earth makes you think that Bush is a fascist? There were two honestly fascist nations - Germany and Italy. When Bush orders dissenters executed, and opens up concentration camps for Arabs, I'll believe he's a fascist. What Bush is is a person who is doing things you don't like. But labeling him as a fascist is denegrating the suffering of the people who were victims of real-life fascism.
What makes you think that Videla had to seek the approval of the United States for his crimes against humanity? The generals running Argentina in the 1980's didn't ask President Reagan for permission to invade the Malvina/Falkland islands. And what could the United States have done about the situation other than to do what we are doing to Iraq right now?
Sorry, but I beg to differ. There is such as thing as too much Godzilla. The American Godzilla movie was too, too much Godzilla. So much Godzilla in fact, that Godzilla wasn't available to play Godzilla, and they found a stumbling drunken lizard, or perhaps Nick Nolte in a lizard suit, to take on the role.
And don't get me started about the velociraptors borrowed from Jurassic Park playing Godzilla's children. And where was Gadzooki? Ok, we really didn't need to see Gadzooki, if there's a Godzilla movie, then Godzilla should look like Godzilla, and if there's a Son of Godzilla out here, he should have some passing resemblence to Son of Godzilla, and he should also be able to blow radioactive smoke rings.
The only thing good about that movie was Jean Reno, because he's French, and even that isn't what it used to be.
Also, there's the bandwidth issue. If the recorded programs are stored on the server, then the viewer is at the whims of the transmission speed - and it's doubtful that you could get the same quality video I can get with a DirecTV/Tivo that records Dolby Digital 5.1 audio straight off the satellite. If the set-top box has a hard drive, then you can copy video from the internet and avoid part of the bandwidth problem - but that sort of defeats the purpose of keeping video stored on the server.
It's never that simple - but this method appears to be an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not a life-detector, it's more of an indicator that life may be present, pointing out higher-potential samples for further review. False positives are OK - they'll be discovered when a person examines the sample. As long as this weeds out some of the non-live samples, it's of benefit.
Why? I'm not an engineer, or a programmer. But, I have worked with a number of licensed engineers, and the operative word here is "licensed". Engineers in the US must first pass a difficult exam to earn their EIT "Engineer In Training", and then after acquiring practical experience, pass another exam to get their PE "Professional Engineer" rating.
To the best of my knowledge, the computer industry does not have anything professional exam approaching the magnitude of the EIT exam, let alone the PE exam. Without a professional qualification of that nature, it's difficult to list computer programming in the ranks of the "learned professions", such as Engineers, Architects, Lawyers, and Physicians. All of whom spend a great deal of money on malpractice or E&O "Errors and Omissions" insurance.
I do not mean to say that there are not professional computer programmers, and that the work that they do is not of a professional nature. It's just that the field of computer programming has not yet attained the status of a profession - and it won't unless there's a means of ranking members of the field. Medicine has doctors and nurses. Law has lawyers and paralegals. Architecture has architects and draftsmen. Computer programers have software engineers and what other posters have referred to as "code-monkeys". When the industry develops a means to test and license the former to differentiate them from the latter, then computer programming will be a profession.
Sorry, but could you please tell me what the DHCP problem is? Just so I know. I have an office network of about 13 XP machines with a server running NT2k. I have noticed that on occasion, the XP machines connection to the Internet stalls, but this is fixed by right-clicking on the network connection's icon and selecting "repair". Is this the problem, or is it something else that I ought to know about?
Re:(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS
on
Windows 2003 Going Gold
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Sorry, but the fascist is the one who orders his secret police to shoot his own citizens in the back when they flee Basra.
The fascist is the one who has dissenters thrown head first into plastic shredders - long before hostilities have started.
The fascist is the one who kidnaps women and children and holds them at gunpoint to coerce their husbands and fathers to take up arms.
The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.
The fascist is the one who has one of his own civilians, a woman, hung after she expresses gratitude towards coalition forces she feels is liberating her country.
The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.
Please feel free to blame President Bush and Prime Minister Blair all you want - you have the freedom to express yourself any way that you want as long as you don't live in Iraq. But it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist, and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this. Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.
The tragedy of Iraq is that if Saddam Hussein had taken an open and cooperative approach from the very beginning, sanctions would have been lifted ten years ago and Iraq would have been a relatively pleasant place to be - even if it remained under the leadership of a fascist dictator.
When photographs of George Bush line every street, and you actually get arrested for the comments you have made, I will agree with you that Bush is a fascist. Until then you are off the deep end. I do not believe that you are unpatriotic for saying that Bush is a fascist, but it's also not an act of fascism to say that you are unpatriotic. Bush gets to speak his mind with no limitations just like you.
On behalf of the Rainbow Coalition, I would like to congratulate the technical community on the acceptance of blue lasers in DVD technology. For generations, blue and other wavelengths of color have tried to break into the technological field, especially in rapidly advancing areas such as data storage, consumer video, and gaming consoles. This is a great step towards the full integration of blue wavelengths into the national and world economies.
Remember, it's not the length of your wave, it's the motion of your amplitude.
A pleasant idea, but it would result in free Open Source NT Server 4.0. Microsoft won't make any more money on it, it will cost them sales of current products, and when the inevitable problems occur, people will still blame Microsoft, even if the open source community is at fault for failing to maintain the software and provide timely fixes. For this reason, making NT 4.0 open source is a lose-lose proposition for Microsoft. The only plus is that it would make the/. crowd happy, and since when would that do any good for Microsoft?
You are forgetting that there's a work around, and that the number of systems that cannot function with port 135 blocked is probably small. Most administrators will simply block port 135 and go about their business with no difficulties whatsoever. Why on earth would they be annoyed about this if they are not affected?
If there was no fix (and for some there won't be if they need port 135 open), then there's due cause to be upset with Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, exactly, is having QWERTY keyboards a bad thing?
Sure, there are variations. Split key keyboards, the funky vertical keyboards, and the Microsoft Ergonomic keyboard, the best keyboard of all time (I have four).
But, all of these keyboards have QWERTY, despite the objections of many who think that there's a better way.
This is really a lesson in interface design. An interface becomes embedded in the subconscious quickly, and it's hard to change once it's in place.
This is why steering wheels, and brake and accelerator pedals haven't changed much in 100 years.
The keyboard and the mouse are the true interface to modern computers. It's not really Windows, Linux, and OSX, it's the damn things that you put hand to in order to make your computer work.
The UI has gone through about 15 years of evolution, but will eventually stop evolving. Keyboard design has been mostly stagnent, and the changes that are made after the first couple of years are usually the result of new technology (examples: Function keys, mouse wheels, fixed macro buttons (e-mail, calculator, etc.).
The UI (the on the screen) should be the same way too. Making radical changes to the UI - changes that seem to take place with every iteration of Windows or Apple's OS, confuse users and make things more difficult. In theory, these UI's should evolve into something more or less constant. The problem with this, of course, is economics and the needs of marketing. Hopefully, people will eventually come to recognize that they don't need a new version of Word this year, or most any other year.
And Doc Samson, the gamma-irradiated psychotherapist.
That dog is Gammy the lovable gamma-irradiated mutt. There's supposed to be a great scene where the dog chases a group of 19th century cowboy re-creationists driving a chuck wagon.
I hope you know that I'm kidding about this.
I for one prefer the CGI Hulk to the Lou Ferrigno Hulk if only for the fact that they can now make the Hulk the right size. The Hulk is supposed to be HUGE, and by huge I mean much larger than a muscle-bound body builder.
I would imagine that one of the reasons why Bill Bixby played Dr. David Banner in the Hulk TV series was that he was a pretty little guy - the transformation of him into the Hulk would be a bit more believeable because of the size difference between Bixby and Ferrigno.
And yes, for you sticklers out there, I did mean to say David Banner. The TV series, for some inexplicable reason, didn't want to use the comic character's name of Bruce Banner.
I do find it interesting, however, that viewing the trailer, the origion of the Hulk borrows more from the TV series than the comic book. In the original story, Bruce Banner was caught in a nuclear explosion. They could have used this - maybe moved the test side to underground, but didn't. Oh well.
Maybe they'll eventually remake the "Trial of the Incredible Hulk" TV movie where attorney Matt Murdock represents David Banner in his criminal trial.
Part of the film was actually shot in San Francisco about a year or so ago.
Well, a recordable DVD would be nice. But how many of you really really want to record the evening news to DVD? I not stupid - I see the utility of this, but as a Tivo owner, I really haven't suffered that much for not being able to record to DVD. 35 hours is enough for me right now, and I can upgrade cheaply to over 100 hours. Also, recording Tivo to DVD, especially at digital quality, would certainly raise the ire of Hollywood. Tivo doesn't need to fight this battle now, when they are already fighting a battle over commerical skipping.
Let's be realistic. In the suborbital module, there's going to a pilot, and maybe one guy to monitor the oxygen system. So there will be one or two passengers in the module (suborbiter?) who will be little more than cargo.
So who wants a ride? Who should we send?
I nominate Wil Wheaton. He's not that tall, or heavy, and he would make a much better passenger than Justin Timberlake.
Or, for God's sake, Paramount could send up one of their actors with a small camera, and could even film the flight as yet another stupid "time travel" episode. Why not send that Vulcan chick into space? Sure beats ordinary special effects. She'd also set new records for the largest breasts at the highest altitude. We owe it to science.
There is a certain amount of sense to the idea of restricting scientific research. Larry Niven's early-Tales of Known Space charactor "Gil Hamilton" worked for a UN agency called the A.R.M. that, amongst other things, suppressed scientific research - keeping the results for themselves in case "secret weapons" were needed in the future.
It's in interesting philosophical question that has been around for a very long time. On one hand, the Catholic Church suppressed Galileo. Nobel invented dynamite, and as a result a lot of people died.
On the other hand, information about nuclear physics and the technology to build nuclear reactors (good) and nuclear weapons (bad) has been suppressed, with limited success, by those countries already in the Nuclear Club. As a result, so far, the terrorists have not yet (we hope) obtained nuclear weapons. September 11th could have been much, much worse if Al Quaeda had the "Islamic Bomb".
In fact, the ARM reminds me of the efforts of the US Government in suppressing cryptographic technology - classifying it as weaponry. And I can't say that the US is wrong. US efforts in breaking the Japanese codes were as responsible for the US victory at Midway as the Navy pilots themselves.
Yes, information wants to be free. So do children, but only irresponsible parents allow their children to run about unattended.
However, I feel that attempts to self-censor or otherwise suppress scientific research are doomed to failure. Information still wants to be free, and anyone who has ever watched "Connections" knows that science doesn't take logical paths - any innovation, however innocent, can result in something very very dangerous.
I'll second this. I have one of those 19" flat screen Sony Trinitrons with the silver case that doesn't have an ordinary monitor swivel mount, and I love it. It works well, it's easy to use, and it's reliable. It's big and bulky, but it's the best monitor I've ever had.
...was the gom jabbar. The applicant places his hand inside of a pain inducer while a Bene Gesserit witch holds a the gom jabbar to his or her neck. If the applicant removes his or her hand from the box in response to the pain, the highly poisonous and pointy gom jabbar is used and the applicant dies. If the applicant does not remove his or her hand from the box despite the pain, the applicant passes and is considered human. Frank Herbert's theory is that the test of being a human is that a human's intellect allows the human to act in an intelligent manner despite strong animalistic urges to act otherwise. Compared to this, Turing's test seems simplistic - pretend well enough to be a human, and you'll be a human.
/. readers) would not pass as human to the Bene Gesserit. Some may not pass as human to Turing. The question we have to answer before developing a test for intelligence isn't whether or not a computer can be intelligent, but rather what exactly is intelligence. Turing's test is little more than a "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck" test. Is that enough? I really don't think that it is. A true intelligence ought to be able to act in an inspired, creative, and perhaps even irrational manner. Many of the things we do are not entirely rational, including much of the partisan discussion concerning various OS's.
It is ironic, however, that a computer would pass the gom jabbar more readily than a homo sapiens. However, both tests start with an implicit principal assumption: A definition as to what a human is. Many of us here (not to single out
and that's why printers don't work as well as they used to. In the past, printers were sold at a profit. Now, printers are sold near cost, maybe even below cost, and more of the profit is made on the consumables, such as inkjet cartridges and special inkjet paper. Since the manufacturers are no longer making money off of the printers themselves, it's in their interest to minimize the production cost of the printers. Minimal production cost = mimimal quality and reliability.
I understand what you are saying. It's pretty ironic. The US is being blamed for intervening in Iraq and is also being blamed for not for intervening in Argentina. The US has been regularly criticized for its "paternalistic" attidude towards Centeral and South America and yet is also criticized for failing to act in a paternalistic manner. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. We should have removed the military government of Argentina but God forbid the US take on Fidel Castro (who has recently instigated yet another massive crackdown on dissent).
Economy crashing: Why? Because of Enron, Global Crossing, and the dotcom crash - none of which were caused by Bush.
Questionable and bloody war for oil - you are correct on this at least. We certainly wouldn't be in Iraq if it were not for Bush. But it hasn't been that bloody, yet.
Same people who bolstered Saddam? So what. Does this mean we should have supported Saddam in 1990-1991 because he was somehow the product of our will? If so, then why didn't he follow orders?
Bush administration silencing political critics? Who? Name one. Name one person who has been prevented from voicing his opinion. Sure, there's Martin Sheen, but he duct-taped his own mouth shut. Sure, Bush and the administration has been criticizing as unpatriotic people opposed to their policies. But they have the same First Amendment right of free speech as you do.
And as for Palestine, remember last year when a shipload of arms was discovered - arms that the Palestinian authority agreed not to have? I suppose, it's Bush's fault that they were cheating, and it's Bush's fault that the Israelis overreact.
And finally, what on earth makes you think that Bush is a fascist? There were two honestly fascist nations - Germany and Italy. When Bush orders dissenters executed, and opens up concentration camps for Arabs, I'll believe he's a fascist. What Bush is is a person who is doing things you don't like. But labeling him as a fascist is denegrating the suffering of the people who were victims of real-life fascism.
What makes you think that Videla had to seek the approval of the United States for his crimes against humanity? The generals running Argentina in the 1980's didn't ask President Reagan for permission to invade the Malvina/Falkland islands. And what could the United States have done about the situation other than to do what we are doing to Iraq right now?
"Phased Plasma Rifle in 40 Watt Range"
"Hey, Just what you see, pal."
Sorry, but I beg to differ. There is such as thing as too much Godzilla. The American Godzilla movie was too, too much Godzilla. So much Godzilla in fact, that Godzilla wasn't available to play Godzilla, and they found a stumbling drunken lizard, or perhaps Nick Nolte in a lizard suit, to take on the role.
And don't get me started about the velociraptors borrowed from Jurassic Park playing Godzilla's children. And where was Gadzooki? Ok, we really didn't need to see Gadzooki, if there's a Godzilla movie, then Godzilla should look like Godzilla, and if there's a Son of Godzilla out here, he should have some passing resemblence to Son of Godzilla, and he should also be able to blow radioactive smoke rings.
The only thing good about that movie was Jean Reno, because he's French, and even that isn't what it used to be.
Also, there's the bandwidth issue. If the recorded programs are stored on the server, then the viewer is at the whims of the transmission speed - and it's doubtful that you could get the same quality video I can get with a DirecTV/Tivo that records Dolby Digital 5.1 audio straight off the satellite. If the set-top box has a hard drive, then you can copy video from the internet and avoid part of the bandwidth problem - but that sort of defeats the purpose of keeping video stored on the server.
It's never that simple - but this method appears to be an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not a life-detector, it's more of an indicator that life may be present, pointing out higher-potential samples for further review. False positives are OK - they'll be discovered when a person examines the sample. As long as this weeds out some of the non-live samples, it's of benefit.
Why? I'm not an engineer, or a programmer. But, I have worked with a number of licensed engineers, and the operative word here is "licensed". Engineers in the US must first pass a difficult exam to earn their EIT "Engineer In Training", and then after acquiring practical experience, pass another exam to get their PE "Professional Engineer" rating.
To the best of my knowledge, the computer industry does not have anything professional exam approaching the magnitude of the EIT exam, let alone the PE exam. Without a professional qualification of that nature, it's difficult to list computer programming in the ranks of the "learned professions", such as Engineers, Architects, Lawyers, and Physicians. All of whom spend a great deal of money on malpractice or E&O "Errors and Omissions" insurance.
I do not mean to say that there are not professional computer programmers, and that the work that they do is not of a professional nature. It's just that the field of computer programming has not yet attained the status of a profession - and it won't unless there's a means of ranking members of the field. Medicine has doctors and nurses. Law has lawyers and paralegals. Architecture has architects and draftsmen. Computer programers have software engineers and what other posters have referred to as "code-monkeys". When the industry develops a means to test and license the former to differentiate them from the latter, then computer programming will be a profession.
Sorry, but could you please tell me what the DHCP problem is? Just so I know. I have an office network of about 13 XP machines with a server running NT2k. I have noticed that on occasion, the XP machines connection to the Internet stalls, but this is fixed by right-clicking on the network connection's icon and selecting "repair". Is this the problem, or is it something else that I ought to know about?
Sorry, but the fascist is the one who orders his secret police to shoot his own citizens in the back when they flee Basra.
The fascist is the one who has dissenters thrown head first into plastic shredders - long before hostilities have started.
The fascist is the one who kidnaps women and children and holds them at gunpoint to coerce their husbands and fathers to take up arms.
The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.
The fascist is the one who has one of his own civilians, a woman, hung after she expresses gratitude towards coalition forces she feels is liberating her country.
The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.
Please feel free to blame President Bush and Prime Minister Blair all you want - you have the freedom to express yourself any way that you want as long as you don't live in Iraq. But it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist, and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this. Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.
The tragedy of Iraq is that if Saddam Hussein had taken an open and cooperative approach from the very beginning, sanctions would have been lifted ten years ago and Iraq would have been a relatively pleasant place to be - even if it remained under the leadership of a fascist dictator.
When photographs of George Bush line every street, and you actually get arrested for the comments you have made, I will agree with you that Bush is a fascist. Until then you are off the deep end. I do not believe that you are unpatriotic for saying that Bush is a fascist, but it's also not an act of fascism to say that you are unpatriotic. Bush gets to speak his mind with no limitations just like you.
On behalf of the Rainbow Coalition, I would like to congratulate the technical community on the acceptance of blue lasers in DVD technology. For generations, blue and other wavelengths of color have tried to break into the technological field, especially in rapidly advancing areas such as data storage, consumer video, and gaming consoles. This is a great step towards the full integration of blue wavelengths into the national and world economies.
Remember, it's not the length of your wave, it's the motion of your amplitude.
A pleasant idea, but it would result in free Open Source NT Server 4.0. Microsoft won't make any more money on it, it will cost them sales of current products, and when the inevitable problems occur, people will still blame Microsoft, even if the open source community is at fault for failing to maintain the software and provide timely fixes. For this reason, making NT 4.0 open source is a lose-lose proposition for Microsoft. The only plus is that it would make the /. crowd happy, and since when would that do any good for Microsoft?
You are forgetting that there's a work around, and that the number of systems that cannot function with port 135 blocked is probably small. Most administrators will simply block port 135 and go about their business with no difficulties whatsoever. Why on earth would they be annoyed about this if they are not affected?
If there was no fix (and for some there won't be if they need port 135 open), then there's due cause to be upset with Microsoft.
I remember Barb Wire as being the movie where the director couldn't even wait until the end of the credits to have Pamela Anderson's first nude scene.