If it helps, this is equivalent to 1 Sievert/hour.
Thank you! milli = 1 / 1,000 I only first heard of millisieverts last month, but the men reporting all throughout that month have NEVER heard of fractions and unneeded redundancy. More likely, the thousand must be there for shock value.
In real life, nobody ever says "1,000 millimeters" or "1,000 milliliters."
And so manufacturers did the only thing they could do: undercut each other on price, to the point where PC profit margins were things best measured in dimes, not dollars.
I predict the same thing happening to Android.
And I'm counting on that. But as of late, even 3+ years after Android's launch, there are too many ripples in the water for prices to stabilize: dual cores and 4G / LTE transitions, iPhones flooding new carriers and outlets, wireless giants' mergers where phones will need carrier changes, etc. Some evidence of price buoyancy is that large Radioshack stores have few offers of "free w/contract" android phones. And only one or two at that, with the tiniest screens of all others at their counters.
Geeky users still on feature-phones like me plus savvy old-time switchers still have to prep to pay $50, $100 or $200 plus contract. PCs got in the tight margin situation not when everyone had one, but around the time when "cheap PC comes with free internet for 6 months" became a marketting tool. Androids and smartphones don't have that kind of saturation yet, cost $500 unsubsidized, and are probably a two full 1.0 releases away from seeing profit margin problems that would drive prices down.
To prove the point, the iPhone just announced a "$50 phone w/contract" tier that IIRC never happened with older iPhones ($99 bottom). It's not on the privileged Verizon network, but on the AT&T one (fighting bad PR and its loss of iPhone exclusivity through price, since tech stopped giving them profit.) That phone is the 2-year-old 3GS model, and offers little benefit because the iPhone 5 announcement is expected in 2 to 6 months. The note here is that the iPhone is a couple years older than the Android, and has finally been forced to join less-desirable priceranges because increasingly marginal "revolutions" can't push profits up, kinda like where dumbphones are today.
I get the feeling that my disabling all those update services that my HP and Toshiba laptops are bundled with can be justified better now. It's not just a performance issue anymore, but a security one. How much longer till others come forward and admit they've been doing the same?
I've never fresh installed a new laptop on purchase day unless other than for business purposes, but this is getting scary.
Don't forget the extremely tiny amount of RAM in them. I mean, if we're gonna run OSs that are superhungry on the desktop then they need to stop bunding just 1GB of RAM already. It's as "serious" for streaming video as XP laptops still running on 256MB RAM... how much earlier did stores clean THOSE out?
Hey, it's not 2006 anymore, and only mac hardware beat those RAM levels in skimpyness. On a day when 3 and 4GB is the laptop and desktop standard, If you're lucky to find 2GB netbooks on shelves, it's "1 step forward, 2 steps back" ---the added RAM and the separate upgrade from the mandatory Windows Seven Starter.
The whole razor-thin prices thing was known to the normal laptop industry way before OLPC networks were even born, so it's no wonder that years later there's been little change. As Atom came out performance stopped being less important than battery life even though nongeeks really don't put 6 hour battery life before their already flaky price and screen size and OS demands.
The lack of real hardware/OS benefit on netbooks is why the consumer fled to the newly-born smartphone market, since we might as well force the portables we buy to be more useful than to simply drag expensive underpowered computers in our bags. It makes sense: netbooks were new and dumb, and we already had comfort with renting "dumb" phone service for an > entire decade with hard, tangible daily benefits.
Heavy is such a vague term. I'm not doing any torrenting, and plan not to download Ubuntu 11 ISO's this quarter.
Even then, I just installed DD-WRT last friday night and was the bandwidth counters show 0.5 to 1GB incoming out of daily flash video, mostly youtubing from the non-geek living with me. I seem to recall/. comments that our USA smartphones are normally capped at 2GB / MONTH. So do they really want only old-lady type users who only write e-mails and never even 'listen to music'? (which unbeknownst to older folks means NOT low-bandwidth mp3s, but youtube's live-stage videoclips with the performance of the song, or boring slideshows with the soundtrack in the background.)
Now excuse me while I go break down and download that Ubuntu 11.4 ISO was holding back on trying. And I'm not as twitchy as teens torrenting DAILY dvd rips and TV shows and keeping open upload slots for anyone who cares.
Which leads to wondering: what happens when a few of those geeks "jailbreak" those routers? does the swat team come in and kick down the door because you flashed it with DD-WRT firmware?
Or did the fed team pick a model that is not [yet] supported by the DD-WRT firmwares?
Only 28 psecs? Curses! That's still not enough to let us fool your millisecond trading systems. Igor, it is necessary to calibrate our earthquake generators a second time. Yes, let us triple the taco fuel!
I have to politely disagree. Nobody ever amassed money in the millions of dollars by being stupid, or we would all be rich. On top of that, the economic crash you mention is from 2007 and everyone still investing today already trimmed their goals, learned their lessons and started over. So why has Facebook continued to make money? I think you're mistaking investors for purely commercial ad revenue --one is asking for a stake of profits, while the other simply pays X euros, gets what they want and bail out next month if things look risky. There are no angel-seed-investor contracts for them, because they don't care about facebook as much as they want ad sales and user data.
Keeping that in mind...
Most investors who's money's at Facebook likely tought like you do, and skipped any serious investigation because surely those who came before them did it, right?
Before anyone signs an agreement for a single cent to go to facebook, serious investigation takes place. Even Google's startup was nothing more than a very risky ad business model that everyone "serious" denied them at first. Eventually someone gave them 100k and others followed suit. where you're going to put money than
Bad things will happen and luck has a role at startup times. But Facebook stopped being a startup half a decade ago. That means that it's not investors so much as well-informed paying customers. And with all the money they're throwing at Facebook, you can be sure they pay their private analysts to run 'credit reports' and stay on top of their game to jump on whatever the next successful looking revenue source well before the other well-informed giants do. If bubbles happen --well, there's always risk funds, insurance, and sadly, the newborn expectation of 'too big to fail' and taxpayer bailouts.
Actually, that also happens in the heart of nearby New York city, though under the covers of a non-english paper of good reputation. There were a couple lines that said "Edit" or something similar and I immediately knew they had stolen it from Wikipedia's spanish page. Googling the first sentence or so confirmed my suspicions.
This is seen as a "victimless" crime where I stand in the sidelines with the bitter knowledge that complaining to the big fish does nothing other than bring undue attention to myself and/or the actual victim of plagiarism... as best case scenario everyone's already read the same plagiarized information so an apology is printed only after the fact and will miss X percentage of the original readers. Content might be removed by the "criminal"* without comment if it is online and you're not lucky... but the scarrier thing that in USA whims might land you and the victim in court to give proof that the material is yours or whatever.
A smaller example of this problem is how impossible it is to kill name/backgroundCheck/credit report scrapers that clone your defunct geocities / Usenet pages and so on. Google, mylife et al make money off bulk-cloning our age, myspace posts, phone numbers and past and present addresses and employers. Since almost nobody hosts personal stuff on their own webservers "protected" by 'no-robots.txt', it's a wild west of "shoot first and inquire later" against webcrawlers. Worse, they provide no useful way to wilfully update bad data or remove unwanted entries, even if they're in housed in your local country.
* Stealing text I own copyright to NOT equally criminal as RIAA's copyright violation standard. Writers are better backed up by USA laws than individual bloggers and copyleft publishers just because cash and publishers+lawyers are a given.
The sentence you quoted comes chained to this false preduction:
There is no Windows version of xscreensaver, and there never will be. Please stop asking
Thank God for open source: Someone else did port his Xscreensavers to Windows as 'MetaSavers', OT post from here on: though it is buggy to the point of discouraging XP users (Vista seems somewhat OK.) Googling was useless, so I worked around two of the bugs and run it happily, thanking the creator/predictor with gritted teeth and a sidelong glance since he DID write the original code at least. Here's my fixes so I can land here when I google them years later:;)
1) Your XScreensaver choice gets reset whenever you click OK anywhere in the XP display control panel even if you changed nothing and didn't look at the screensaver section. IIRC you have to right-click the installed metasavers exe and pick install from your admin account; then open the display control panel's Screensaver page, checking that Metasavers [plu 119 individual bundled savers, annoyingly] are there. Don't go closing the control panel screen. Use regedt32.exe to remove the write permissions from the current Windows acount for just this item: HKCU\Control Panel\Desktop\SCRNSAVE.exe. At the Control Panel's Screensaver page click on OK now. You need to bookmark the above registry location so that it's easier to return there for any undo, since further changes to Display.cpl's tabs are silently locked out. That is including changing wallpapers, colors, DPI or switching off the metasavers... you'll have the chore of going back in from an admin account to give yourself the registry permissions that were removed earlier. 2) The Savers sometimes start and immediately quit, leaving you with a sleepless monitor and PC. Solution #1 fixed that, but it's tricky for multi-account PC's. 3) The Savers silently disable your monitor's sleep mode [only] in XP. Before altering the permissions in step #1, find what your Windows Energy saver countdown is, and for Metasavers' config for 'rotate every x minutes' pick a much larger number so that your PC can sleep, forcibly sleepel-ing the beatiful xscreensavers and when a respite is expected. 4) The savers ported are *very* dated, and "Juggle" plus one of the two 3D gear savers are spoiled by nigh cringe-worthy jitters --no fix, but the others are OK on my NVidia 8400GS card. Under Vista SP2 + integrated intel card the savers sometimes fail to cover the Windows Sidebar and Start Menu.
All that high-maintenance is worth the effort if you want a better OpenGL screensaver variety in Windows and are tired of having only 10 savers when away from your linux partition. The metascreensaver config lets you enable a rotation of win32 screensavers so you don't need to return to the regedt32. However, when choosing to turn down the savers or when any program trying to install custom screensavers will need your review of step 1 instructions.
Who else read this headline in their RSS feed and had the first thought of "aw jeez, this is gonna be a bloodbath in the comments section"?
Actually, my first thought was "nice, something to entertain myself while compiling."
Haha. I guess someone could write a firefox plugins that does like googlefight.com but in 3D, and overlays it on the comment pages and acts something out based on scores differences and relative UID powers.
Add randomness and move AI to make it less-repetitive if you refresh, and throw in HTML "bloodbath" sim a-la mortal kombat, and visualilze fun things for events like 'this comment was rated troll!' appearing and so on...
It is not "vlueboy's observation" --it's Facebook's observations based on private data and actual logs being analyzed month by month by managers, developers and the advertisers we're so afraid of giving up our fake/real data to. Ours "observations" on/. are based on "guesstimates" and the unfair assumption that millions of uneducated former myspace users (and ALL their old, young and distant relatives who didn't necessarily know PCs could be useful till FB arrived) suddenly boarded the web in force and got savvy enough to have 4 to 10 sock-puppets each*, and security-unconscious (at least per/. opinion), devious enough to do multi-browser windows, and savvy enough to somehow hide from their sneaky FB App all that data that ties their Smartphone to a single real identity according to what the cellphone provider used to validate their mandatory contracts. Contracts are the norm, not anonymous pay options.
I thought the concensus was that even plain cookies and javascript worked magic on tracking our identities. Why is a company that bested Google in several competitive spying areas so hard to believe?
They have enough room to publish all your txt data and pictures and keep them "forever," so what prevents them from logging a few bytes with the IPs you are known to use? What about cellphone Apps? Besides, websites *know* when your router is running 25 simultaneus clients and your approximate geolocation. Remember those users getting a spoof warning when they travel 3000 miles away? Thats the power of their info. We are doing armchair discussions while the money guys pound FB for more concrete data on their users than this. They have averages knows for dummy inactive accounts, including how your sock puppets have zero to some handful # of friends in similar conditions, and seeing how their total users avera 180 friends, it's clear the can flag abnormalities.
* per your estimate --btw spammers can't drive up averages much, or their fake accounts would come up all over our FB Friend Searches, just like happens @myspace today
It's a chance to publicly prove that you're smarter than the FBI's crypto team - what more motivation could you want?
But do they give you a job, or do they flag your dossier when someone else hires you to work on other encryption, given your relative ability to do things above the FBI's ability to counter?
Do you really believe that Facebook has 600 [unique] million users? [instead of 50-150 million]
The same investors' money that has valued then at X billion dollars and the ad-sellers wouldn't be there unless they could prove statements put on FB's public page. It doesn't matter what slashdot believes because money is what talks. Remember that those guys have access to FB's private logs, and need them before plunking their hard cash to pay for your bandwidth, hard drive costs and so on.
The "public" information for non-investors says that 250 million log in at any given day. You can bet they have plenty 'semi-active' accounts besides these, and see confirmation from the lion's own mouth that the 500-600m is an active count, so it's safe to assume that they have private data on how many other accounts are out there and exact usage frequency of those old people who only use it once a week.
Oops. I meant MySpace, rather than AOL losing their userbase quickly. On closer inspection, that is useful: AOL had a hardware business (modems) and it cannot die quickly because infrastructure changes are involved (users switching away from models and/or getting new email accounts even if they already have broadband)
So escaping out of AOL means a slower death and more marginal profit because they're on life-support for longer with a less flexible userbase. Compare to switching away from Myspace and other purely 'free virtual' services. Think about how easy and painless it is, to just 'stop' using one and sign up for another free service out of the dozens out there.
That the remaining percentage will be the slowest in the exodus doesn't matter. AOL's kind of "life" is exactly what a brain-dead patient on life-support has after the majority of its userbase left --very, very quickly, I might add.
The sound a falling [software] giant makes is the perfect example of "Is there really a sound of a tree falling in an empty forest where there's nobody around to hear it?"
1) I do NOT smoke at all 2) This "tiny cigarette smoke exposure" is farther-reaching than 1 mere nearby cigarette I can outrun. Tokyo is 200 kilometers away, a) that's 6 hours away by bus b) and 2 by Shinkansen (bullet train). 3) You can outwalk smokers more easily than you can up and "skip town", sell your house, take your stuff AND get a new job if things get bad. 4) It's not "ONE cigarette" that is proven to cripple and kill a smoker. It's constant exposure. See #3. 5) Nobody ever got evacuated by a government team for smoking a cigarette. Evac teams in a 20 mile radio around ground zero thinks things are a bit worse than mere cigarette levels.
No cigarette ever comes with exclusion zones. This AC would not even be allowed nearby. Pretty easy not being "scare-mongered" when he's just got constant electric power (not like eastern Japan) to even be reading radiation stats half a world away.
I vaguely remember that netbooks originally bundled Linux to meet to their $99 pricepoint (completely ignored beyond the African markets OLPC catered to in 2006 or so.) IIRC, XP took the lead because Vista was too bloated on ANY hardware of the times.
XP started to displace Linux as mainstream users demanded features, and Windows Seven became an instant king of netbooks at launch. That meant cries of joy at Microsoft for moving away from cheap OS licenses AND threw out to the Seven masses their Vista business practice of using the nonsense of 'Starter' editions that geek users must now migrate to 'Premium' for an extra $100 dollars. Vista's old Basic-to-Premium was short-lived because of vendor resistance, but netbooks on basic are doing just fine ~17 months later. But I digress.
I saw few linux netbooks in the wild or even store shelves even 24 months ago. Even the largest stores in this large US city have zero to one Linux model on display today. To normal end users who want them, it's *harder* than even finding PC133 RAM. Therefore it's hard to consider Linux competition when it's a low-profit item that nearly nobody wants to sells you, IMO. Unlike Linux-on-desktop/netbook, Apple's has never-waning iOS and Unix-like sales that some businesses procure exclusively, and financial business analysts aren't ignoring.
Wow. I'd given up on OS 8 emulation because I only about basilisk's support for OS 7. Thanks for letting me know about emaculation!
I remember back when emulation.net was not yet domain parked. It was a mac only reference, which you don't expect for such such a highly Win32-exclusive field. Your post made me nostalgic for how gerryICQ helped filled the void when neither the official mac ICQ nor AOL IM stored chats and seriously lacked feature-parity with Windows... or playing chiptunes from bannister.org's nsf emulator, which later came to Windows.
Thanks, kind anon. Now, where's the MacOS install CD for that old dead G3 of mine...
The only real way to ensure that we don't run out of IP space is to rent them, not sell them. Charge a "property tax" of $1 per IP a month and you'll see tons of organizations with class A blocks give back IP space that they weren't using anyway because they can't afford $16M a month.
That is pure evil genius; it would create revenue streams at no additional cost, just like that google books / copyright extension topic a couple days ago. It would also fill the current current lack of IP parking (think DNS parking.) However, there'd be pushback from the legacy corps and giants and their lawers because nobody wants to pay for what they got for free in blocks of millions.*
Since IPv4 and IPv6 are two different universes, and v6 is the more malleable one because it's still a cocoon, greed on all those/48 segments per person are likely to create changes to the standard, even in the implementations of routers and OS's. I'm serious. Just like "port 80 out and port 25 out" used to be open for *everyone* in v4, and closed at no cash refund to internet service customers. Once >50% of the ISP's of the world switch to v6 in a couple decades, they'll start cutting back on the effective IP ranges and forcing changes to the RFC specs that so inclined us to move away from v4 in the first place. After all, why give us millions of IPs for free if they can charge for all the unused ones until something really uses them? Sad.
* Hypocrites! if we, the formerly-unlimited-plan consumers, mention our desire to return to the cap-free *unlimited* home broadband plans of a decade ago, they give us the finger. We must already rent bandwidth from them and pay overage charges.
Even if you could sublet very small subsets of these (say 3 IPs for someone's random blog, mail and dns servers.) there will never be a full allocation because large companies won't be buying IP's in small packages unless it's from SEVERAL hard to manage disjointed segments at once. The end result is that lots of the small allocations are never sold, and collect dust just like your heavy but useless pocket change.
That's a true waste, but will eventually see a herculean effort to try to join all that pocket change to trade in for big money in a last effort to save cash by delaying IPv6 another decade.
Slashdot Mirror
If it helps, this is equivalent to 1 Sievert/hour.
Thank you! milli = 1 / 1,000
I only first heard of millisieverts last month,
but the men reporting all throughout that month have NEVER heard of fractions and unneeded redundancy. More likely, the thousand must be there for shock value.
In real life, nobody ever says "1,000 millimeters" or "1,000 milliliters."
1) Solar-powered electricity fails on cloudy days.
2) IP-over-the-cloud fails on sunny days
3) ?????
4) Profit!
Thanks, Fool-slashcode!
I can't wait to add "Subtractionally" to our company's annoying lingo list.
The buzzword-ridden documents they put out couldn't possibly make any less sense as it is.
And so manufacturers did the only thing they could do: undercut each other on price, to the point where PC profit margins were things best measured in dimes, not dollars.
I predict the same thing happening to Android.
And I'm counting on that. But as of late, even 3+ years after Android's launch, there are too many ripples in the water for prices to stabilize: dual cores and 4G / LTE transitions, iPhones flooding new carriers and outlets, wireless giants' mergers where phones will need carrier changes, etc. Some evidence of price buoyancy is that large Radioshack stores have few offers of "free w/contract" android phones. And only one or two at that, with the tiniest screens of all others at their counters.
Geeky users still on feature-phones like me plus savvy old-time switchers still have to prep to pay $50, $100 or $200 plus contract. PCs got in the tight margin situation not when everyone had one, but around the time when "cheap PC comes with free internet for 6 months" became a marketting tool. Androids and smartphones don't have that kind of saturation yet, cost $500 unsubsidized, and are probably a two full 1.0 releases away from seeing profit margin problems that would drive prices down.
To prove the point, the iPhone just announced a "$50 phone w/contract" tier that IIRC never happened with older iPhones ($99 bottom). It's not on the privileged Verizon network, but on the AT&T one (fighting bad PR and its loss of iPhone exclusivity through price, since tech stopped giving them profit.) That phone is the 2-year-old 3GS model, and offers little benefit because the iPhone 5 announcement is expected in 2 to 6 months. The note here is that the iPhone is a couple years older than the Android, and has finally been forced to join less-desirable priceranges because increasingly marginal "revolutions" can't push profits up, kinda like where dumbphones are today.
I get the feeling that my disabling all those update services that my HP and Toshiba laptops are bundled with can be justified better now. It's not just a performance issue anymore, but a security one. How much longer till others come forward and admit they've been doing the same?
I've never fresh installed a new laptop on purchase day unless other than for business purposes, but this is getting scary.
Don't forget the extremely tiny amount of RAM in them. I mean, if we're gonna run OSs that are superhungry on the desktop then they need to stop bunding just 1GB of RAM already. It's as "serious" for streaming video as XP laptops still running on 256MB RAM... how much earlier did stores clean THOSE out?
Hey, it's not 2006 anymore, and only mac hardware beat those RAM levels in skimpyness. On a day when 3 and 4GB is the laptop and desktop standard, If you're lucky to find 2GB netbooks on shelves, it's "1 step forward, 2 steps back" ---the added RAM and the separate upgrade from the mandatory Windows Seven Starter.
The whole razor-thin prices thing was known to the normal laptop industry way before OLPC networks were even born, so it's no wonder that years later there's been little change. As Atom came out performance stopped being less important than battery life even though nongeeks really don't put 6 hour battery life before their already flaky price and screen size and OS demands.
The lack of real hardware/OS benefit on netbooks is why the consumer fled to the newly-born smartphone market, since we might as well force the portables we buy to be more useful than to simply drag expensive underpowered computers in our bags. It makes sense: netbooks were new and dumb, and we already had comfort with renting "dumb" phone service for an > entire decade with hard, tangible daily benefits.
Heavy is such a vague term. I'm not doing any torrenting, and plan not to download Ubuntu 11 ISO's this quarter.
Even then, I just installed DD-WRT last friday night and was the bandwidth counters show 0.5 to 1GB incoming out of daily flash video, mostly youtubing from the non-geek living with me. I seem to recall /. comments that our USA smartphones are normally capped at 2GB / MONTH. So do they really want only old-lady type users who only write e-mails and never even 'listen to music'? (which unbeknownst to older folks means NOT low-bandwidth mp3s, but youtube's live-stage videoclips with the performance of the song, or boring slideshows with the soundtrack in the background.)
Now excuse me while I go break down and download that Ubuntu 11.4 ISO was holding back on trying. And I'm not as twitchy as teens torrenting DAILY dvd rips and TV shows and keeping open upload slots for anyone who cares.
Which leads to wondering: what happens when a few of those geeks "jailbreak" those routers? does the swat team come in and kick down the door because you flashed it with DD-WRT firmware?
Or did the fed team pick a model that is not [yet] supported by the DD-WRT firmwares?
Very sorry for being 28 picoseconds late!
Only 28 psecs? Curses! That's still not enough to let us fool your millisecond trading systems.
Igor, it is necessary to calibrate our earthquake generators a second time.
Yes, let us triple the taco fuel!
I have to politely disagree. Nobody ever amassed money in the millions of dollars by being stupid, or we would all be rich. On top of that, the economic crash you mention is from 2007 and everyone still investing today already trimmed their goals, learned their lessons and started over. So why has Facebook continued to make money? I think you're mistaking investors for purely commercial ad revenue --one is asking for a stake of profits, while the other simply pays X euros, gets what they want and bail out next month if things look risky. There are no angel-seed-investor contracts for them, because they don't care about facebook as much as they want ad sales and user data.
Keeping that in mind...
Most investors who's money's at Facebook likely tought like you do, and skipped any serious investigation because surely those who came before them did it, right?
Before anyone signs an agreement for a single cent to go to facebook, serious investigation takes place. Even Google's startup was nothing more than a very risky ad business model that everyone "serious" denied them at first. Eventually someone gave them 100k and others followed suit. where you're going to put money than
Bad things will happen and luck has a role at startup times. But Facebook stopped being a startup half a decade ago. That means that it's not investors so much as well-informed paying customers. And with all the money they're throwing at Facebook, you can be sure they pay their private analysts to run 'credit reports' and stay on top of their game to jump on whatever the next successful looking revenue source well before the other well-informed giants do. If bubbles happen --well, there's always risk funds, insurance, and sadly, the newborn expectation of 'too big to fail' and taxpayer bailouts.
Actually, that also happens in the heart of nearby New York city, though under the covers of a non-english paper of good reputation. There were a couple lines that said "Edit" or something similar and I immediately knew they had stolen it from Wikipedia's spanish page. Googling the first sentence or so confirmed my suspicions.
This is seen as a "victimless" crime where I stand in the sidelines with the bitter knowledge that complaining to the big fish does nothing other than bring undue attention to myself and/or the actual victim of plagiarism... as best case scenario everyone's already read the same plagiarized information so an apology is printed only after the fact and will miss X percentage of the original readers. Content might be removed by the "criminal"* without comment if it is online and you're not lucky... but the scarrier thing that in USA whims might land you and the victim in court to give proof that the material is yours or whatever.
A smaller example of this problem is how impossible it is to kill name/backgroundCheck/credit report scrapers that clone your defunct geocities / Usenet pages and so on. Google, mylife et al make money off bulk-cloning our age, myspace posts, phone numbers and past and present addresses and employers. Since almost nobody hosts personal stuff on their own webservers "protected" by 'no-robots.txt', it's a wild west of "shoot first and inquire later" against webcrawlers. Worse, they provide no useful way to wilfully update bad data or remove unwanted entries, even if they're in housed in your local country.
* Stealing text I own copyright to NOT equally criminal as RIAA's copyright violation standard. Writers are better backed up by USA laws than individual bloggers and copyleft publishers just because cash and publishers+lawyers are a given.
The sentence you quoted comes chained to this false preduction:
There is no Windows version of xscreensaver, and there never will be. Please stop asking
Thank God for open source: Someone else did port his Xscreensavers to Windows as 'MetaSavers', ;)
OT post from here on:
though it is buggy to the point of discouraging XP users (Vista seems somewhat OK.) Googling was useless, so I worked around two of the bugs and run it happily, thanking the creator/predictor with gritted teeth and a sidelong glance since he DID write the original code at least. Here's my fixes so I can land here when I google them years later:
1) Your XScreensaver choice gets reset whenever you click OK anywhere in the XP display control panel even if you changed nothing and didn't look at the screensaver section. IIRC you have to right-click the installed metasavers exe and pick install from your admin account; then open the display control panel's Screensaver page, checking that Metasavers [plu 119 individual bundled savers, annoyingly] are there. Don't go closing the control panel screen. Use regedt32.exe to remove the write permissions from the current Windows acount for just this item: HKCU\Control Panel\Desktop\SCRNSAVE.exe. At the Control Panel's Screensaver page click on OK now. You need to bookmark the above registry location so that it's easier to return there for any undo, since further changes to Display.cpl's tabs are silently locked out. That is including changing wallpapers, colors, DPI or switching off the metasavers... you'll have the chore of going back in from an admin account to give yourself the registry permissions that were removed earlier.
2) The Savers sometimes start and immediately quit, leaving you with a sleepless monitor and PC. Solution #1 fixed that, but it's tricky for multi-account PC's.
3) The Savers silently disable your monitor's sleep mode [only] in XP. Before altering the permissions in step #1, find what your Windows Energy saver countdown is, and for Metasavers' config for 'rotate every x minutes' pick a much larger number so that your PC can sleep, forcibly sleepel-ing the beatiful xscreensavers and when a respite is expected.
4) The savers ported are *very* dated, and "Juggle" plus one of the two 3D gear savers are spoiled by nigh cringe-worthy jitters --no fix, but the others are OK on my NVidia 8400GS card. Under Vista SP2 + integrated intel card the savers sometimes fail to cover the Windows Sidebar and Start Menu.
All that high-maintenance is worth the effort if you want a better OpenGL screensaver variety in Windows and are tired of having only 10 savers when away from your linux partition. The metascreensaver config lets you enable a rotation of win32 screensavers so you don't need to return to the regedt32. However, when choosing to turn down the savers or when any program trying to install custom screensavers will need your review of step 1 instructions.
Who else read this headline in their RSS feed and had the first thought of "aw jeez, this is gonna be a bloodbath in the comments section"?
Actually, my first thought was "nice, something to entertain myself while compiling."
Haha. I guess someone could write a firefox plugins that does like googlefight.com but in 3D, and overlays it on the comment pages and acts something out based on scores differences and relative UID powers.
Add randomness and move AI to make it less-repetitive if you refresh, and throw in HTML "bloodbath" sim a-la mortal kombat, and visualilze fun things for events like 'this comment was rated troll!' appearing and so on...
It is not "vlueboy's observation" --it's Facebook's observations based on private data and actual logs being analyzed month by month by managers, developers and the advertisers we're so afraid of giving up our fake/real data to. Ours "observations" on /. are based on "guesstimates" and the unfair assumption that millions of uneducated former myspace users (and ALL their old, young and distant relatives who didn't necessarily know PCs could be useful till FB arrived) suddenly boarded the web in force and got savvy enough to have 4 to 10 sock-puppets each*, and security-unconscious (at least per /. opinion), devious enough to do multi-browser windows, and savvy enough to somehow hide from their sneaky FB App all that data that ties their Smartphone to a single real identity according to what the cellphone provider used to validate their mandatory contracts. Contracts are the norm, not anonymous pay options.
I thought the concensus was that even plain cookies and javascript worked magic on tracking our identities. Why is a company that bested Google in several competitive spying areas so hard to believe?
They have enough room to publish all your txt data and pictures and keep them "forever," so what prevents them from logging a few bytes with the IPs you are known to use? What about cellphone Apps? Besides, websites *know* when your router is running 25 simultaneus clients and your approximate geolocation. Remember those users getting a spoof warning when they travel 3000 miles away? Thats the power of their info. We are doing armchair discussions while the money guys pound FB for more concrete data on their users than this. They have averages knows for dummy inactive accounts, including how your sock puppets have zero to some handful # of friends in similar conditions, and seeing how their total users avera 180 friends, it's clear the can flag abnormalities.
* per your estimate --btw spammers can't drive up averages much, or their fake accounts would come up all over our FB Friend Searches, just like happens @myspace today
It's a chance to publicly prove that you're smarter than the FBI's crypto team - what more motivation could you want?
But do they give you a job, or do they flag your dossier when someone else hires you to work on other encryption, given your relative ability to do things above the FBI's ability to counter?
Do you really believe that Facebook has 600 [unique] million users? [instead of 50-150 million]
The same investors' money that has valued then at X billion dollars and the ad-sellers wouldn't be there unless they could prove statements put on FB's public page. It doesn't matter what slashdot believes because money is what talks. Remember that those guys have access to FB's private logs, and need them before plunking their hard cash to pay for your bandwidth, hard drive costs and so on.
The "public" information for non-investors says that 250 million log in at any given day. You can bet they have plenty 'semi-active' accounts besides these, and see confirmation from the lion's own mouth that the 500-600m is an active count, so it's safe to assume that they have private data on how many other accounts are out there and exact usage frequency of those old people who only use it once a week.
Oops. I meant MySpace, rather than AOL losing their userbase quickly.
On closer inspection, that is useful: AOL had a hardware business (modems) and it cannot die quickly because infrastructure changes are involved (users switching away from models and/or getting new email accounts even if they already have broadband)
So escaping out of AOL means a slower death and more marginal profit because they're on life-support for longer with a less flexible userbase. Compare to switching away from Myspace and other purely 'free virtual' services. Think about how easy and painless it is, to just 'stop' using one and sign up for another free service out of the dozens out there.
That the remaining percentage will be the slowest in the exodus doesn't matter. AOL's kind of "life" is exactly what a brain-dead patient on life-support has after the majority of its userbase left --very, very quickly, I might add.
The sound a falling [software] giant makes is the perfect example of "Is there really a sound of a tree falling in an empty forest where there's nobody around to hear it?"
T T is "japanese"
Q Q I'd not seen before, but if it's Chinese, it just strengthens the evidence for "all you asians look alike."
Oh boy.
Wow, I didn't suspect we're at least 26,938 accounts past the 2 million mark. ;)
On a related note... Enjoy your brand new username!
That's more than just "scary," considering that
1) I do NOT smoke at all
2) This "tiny cigarette smoke exposure" is farther-reaching than 1 mere nearby cigarette I can outrun. Tokyo is 200 kilometers away,
a) that's 6 hours away by bus
b) and 2 by Shinkansen (bullet train).
3) You can outwalk smokers more easily than you can up and "skip town", sell your house, take your stuff AND get a new job if things get bad.
4) It's not "ONE cigarette" that is proven to cripple and kill a smoker. It's constant exposure. See #3.
5) Nobody ever got evacuated by a government team for smoking a cigarette. Evac teams in a 20 mile radio around ground zero thinks things are a bit worse than mere cigarette levels.
No cigarette ever comes with exclusion zones. This AC would not even be allowed nearby. Pretty easy not being "scare-mongered" when he's just got constant electric power (not like eastern Japan) to even be reading radiation stats half a world away.
I vaguely remember that netbooks originally bundled Linux to meet to their $99 pricepoint (completely ignored beyond the African markets OLPC catered to in 2006 or so.) IIRC, XP took the lead because Vista was too bloated on ANY hardware of the times.
XP started to displace Linux as mainstream users demanded features, and Windows Seven became an instant king of netbooks at launch. That meant cries of joy at Microsoft for moving away from cheap OS licenses AND threw out to the Seven masses their Vista business practice of using the nonsense of 'Starter' editions that geek users must now migrate to 'Premium' for an extra $100 dollars. Vista's old Basic-to-Premium was short-lived because of vendor resistance, but netbooks on basic are doing just fine ~17 months later. But I digress.
I saw few linux netbooks in the wild or even store shelves even 24 months ago. Even the largest stores in this large US city have zero to one Linux model on display today. To normal end users who want them, it's *harder* than even finding PC133 RAM. Therefore it's hard to consider Linux competition when it's a low-profit item that nearly nobody wants to sells you, IMO. Unlike Linux-on-desktop/netbook, Apple's has never-waning iOS and Unix-like sales that some businesses procure exclusively, and financial business analysts aren't ignoring.
Wow. I'd given up on OS 8 emulation because I only about basilisk's support for OS 7. Thanks for letting me know about emaculation!
I remember back when emulation.net was not yet domain parked. It was a mac only reference, which you don't expect for such such a highly Win32-exclusive field. Your post made me nostalgic for how gerryICQ helped filled the void when neither the official mac ICQ nor AOL IM stored chats and seriously lacked feature-parity with Windows... or playing chiptunes from bannister.org's nsf emulator, which later came to Windows.
Thanks, kind anon. Now, where's the MacOS install CD for that old dead G3 of mine...
The only real way to ensure that we don't run out of IP space is to rent them, not sell them. Charge a "property tax" of $1 per IP a month and you'll see tons of organizations with class A blocks give back IP space that they weren't using anyway because they can't afford $16M a month.
That is pure evil genius; it would create revenue streams at no additional cost, just like that google books / copyright extension topic a couple days ago. It would also fill the current current lack of IP parking (think DNS parking.) However, there'd be pushback from the legacy corps and giants and their lawers because nobody wants to pay for what they got for free in blocks of millions.*
Since IPv4 and IPv6 are two different universes, and v6 is the more malleable one because it's still a cocoon, greed on all those /48 segments per person are likely to create changes to the standard, even in the implementations of routers and OS's. I'm serious. Just like "port 80 out and port 25 out" used to be open for *everyone* in v4, and closed at no cash refund to internet service customers. Once >50% of the ISP's of the world switch to v6 in a couple decades, they'll start cutting back on the effective IP ranges and forcing changes to the RFC specs that so inclined us to move away from v4 in the first place. After all, why give us millions of IPs for free if they can charge for all the unused ones until something really uses them? Sad.
* Hypocrites! if we, the formerly-unlimited-plan consumers, mention our desire to return to the cap-free *unlimited* home broadband plans of a decade ago, they give us the finger. We must already rent bandwidth from them and pay overage charges.
Insightful. You're right about the hoarding.
Even if you could sublet very small subsets of these (say 3 IPs for someone's random blog, mail and dns servers.) there will never be a full allocation because large companies won't be buying IP's in small packages unless it's from SEVERAL hard to manage disjointed segments at once. The end result is that lots of the small allocations are never sold, and collect dust just like your heavy but useless pocket change.
That's a true waste, but will eventually see a herculean effort to try to join all that pocket change to trade in for big money in a last effort to save cash by delaying IPv6 another decade.