Last year a friend of mine upgraded GirlFriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that
it's a memory hog leaving very little system resources for other applications.
He is only now noticing that Wife 1.0 also is spawning Child-Processes which
are further consuming valuable resources. No mention of this particular
phenomena was included in the product brochure or the documentation, though
other users have informed him that this is to be expected due to the nature
of the application. Not only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself such that it is
always launched at system initialization where it can monitor all other
system activity. He's finding that some applications such as PokerNight
10.3, BeerBash 2.5, and PubNight 7.0 are no longer able to run in the
system at all, crashing the system when selected (even though they always
worked fine before).
At installation, Wife 1.0 provides no option as to the installation of
undesired Plug-Ins such as MotherInLaw 55.8 and BrotherInLaw Beta release.
Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing day.
The features he'd like to see in the upcoming Wife 2.0 include:
A "Don't remind me again" button
Minimize button
An install shield feature that allows Wife 2.0 to be installed with
the option to uninstall at any time without the loss of cache and
other systemresources.
An option to run the network driver in promiscuous mode which would
allow the systems hardware probe feature to be much more useful.
I myself decided to avoid all of the headaches associated with Wife 1.0 by
sticking with Girlfriend 2.0. Even here, however, I found many problems.
Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 2.0 on top of Girlfriend 1.0.
You must uninstall Girlfriend 1.0 first. Other users say this is a long
standing bug which I should have been aware of. Apparently the versions of
Girlfriend have conflicts over shared use of the I/O port. You think they
would have fixed such a stupid bug by now. To make matters worse, the uninstall
program for Girlfriend 1.0 doesn't work very well leaving undesirable traces
of the application in the system.
Another thing that sucks -- all versions of Girlfriend continually pop-up
little annoying messages about the advantages of upgrading to Wife 1.0
BUG WARNING
Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before
uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the
uninstall itself. Then Mistress 1.1 will refuse to install, claiming
insufficient resources.
BUG WORK-AROUNDS
To avoid the above bug, try installing Mistress 1.1 on a different system
and never run any file transfer applications such as LapLink 6.0. Also,
beware of similar shareware applications that have been known to carry
viruses that may affect Wife 1.0.
Another solution would be to run Mistress 1.0 via a UseNet provider under
an anonymous name. Here again, beware of the viruses which can accidentally
be downloaded from the UseNet.
I see the Internet and SPAM as part of these three issues:
- "easy to communicate"
- "easy to find"
- "privacy"
The Internet makes it "easy to communicate". That's e-mail, web, etc.
A by-product of "easy to communicate" is "easy to find". That is, some one can look me up easily. Try Googling someone's (listed) phone number. Surprising results are to be found there!
"privacy" means that I am not easy to find. I can be found, but alot has to be done to find me. "privacy" and "easy to find" are in conflict with each other, of course.
The analogy is your telephone number. Having a phone number, well that's easy to communicate. If it is listed, then you are "easy" to find. If it is unlisted, you are "private" and "hard" to find.
Now I get telemarketers calling me. One would say that is because I am "listed" (e.g. "easy to find"). I find that some of my friends who are "unlisted" also get the same calls. But since "the country" got tired of these calls but still wanted to be "easy to find" we now have a National don't call list. I am not suggesting such legislation be done for e-mail (since telemarketers have a organization, and can be "easy to find", they had to agree and this works here) because the dynamics are different and it won't work. However, before is block list we had "Privacy Manager" for the phone (extra $$/month), Caller ID (extra $$/month), Answering machine and screening (extra cost). None of these DIRECTLY addressed the issue of SPAM. The problem is SPAM, not e-mail.
I think our differences is that I believe that just because you want to be "easy to be found" you should not have to "endure" SPAM. OR in your way, if you don't want SPAM, you shouldn't be "easily found". Don't get me wrong - you may be "private" and anonymous, and that's OK. However, your premise is that if you want to be SPAM free, you should be "private". I say that the problem is SPAM and we should look to eliminate it at the source.
Your suggestions, which are insightful (and ones I have not thought of actually) again are not very workable for me. The school publishes (e.g. web page) my "official" e-mail address. Even so, I would have to scan my "disposable" e-mail addresses for "useful" messages (questions about coming to B-W, etc) coming from person NOT in my classes, etc. A private one for classes is OK, however, I find that students don't e-mail me as much as they call or AIM me. In addition, although your methods are logical, they involve some "extra work" on my part, and at the moment, the "pain" of deleting SPAM isn't cost effective for me to go with your method. I primarily try to "unsubscribe" from most junk - that *does* seem to help. It's the junky bottom feeder stuff that comes in that annoys me the most - ones that don't have a workable "unsubscribe" feature.
Now if we could get rid of the SPAM AIM messages!!!
I think we agree that we "disagree". This has been a good civil conversation via Slashdot. Thanks!
GOOD POINT. GOOD METHOD. I see how this can reduce SPAM. You have implemented basically a private list for e-mail correspondence.
What you are doing is a variation of a theme I've seen before. Some 10+ years ago, someone was stating how they had several mispellings of their name that they used in correspondence (e.g. with creditors, magazine subscriptions, etc). When they received a junk mail with a particular mispelling of their name, they knew the "originator" of the junk mail (e.g. who sold the name info) and would contact the originator to cease and desist (in selling their name).
HOWEVER, you are missing the *good* point of e-mail...that someone "you don't know" can look you up and send you an e-mail. Noting how the "Internet never forgets" (e.g. http://www.archive.org) your old e-mail addresses will *still* be out there, though dead they may be. And people trying to send you an e-mail try look you up (without personally contacting you that is) may possibly see some frustration in the sense that they may find one of your old e-mail addresses.
Then there are people like me who work in education who need a "stable" e-mail address for students, etc to contact me by. Your method wouldn't work for those like me who "need" to be contacted by others not in a private group. (I sometimes wish, though, after deleting the 100th SPAM mail for the day, I could do what you do.)
The problem is SPAM. Your method, though does control what SPAM you see, makes it harder to find you, which is counter productive of what the "Internet" is supposed to do (make it easier to find you). We (the Netizens) need to figure out how get RID of SPAM!
Back on the original topic, I think the "Caller ID for E-Mail" is FUD.
Your solution you propose is also a "no solution".
This may work for you, but it is not practical in the "real world". You state that you have reduced spam, but how do people contact/find you? Maybe you don't get e-mail from friends, families, co-workers, etc on a daily (hourly!) basis, but I do. You solution propose that every so many months, inform everyone "hey, my e-mail address has changed. It's now "blah blah@blah blah.blah". This is like changing your phone number just because you get a telemarketer calling you.
Also since you note you are down to 3-5 spam a month, it just goes to show you that your method is not immune to the "brute force" spamming that is going on.
Now, for a real solution - let's sic the ACLU and personal injury lawyers on the case. That will solve TWO problems we have in the world. If we can only start this up!!!
I can see the FAQ list for this robot...
1) How often should I perform "Windows Update"
to get the service packs required to keep
my robot "functional"?
2) What happens when my robot crashes? Will
it shoot me or commit suicide?
3) What brand of Virus Scanner Software is
compatible for my robot? Also how often
should I update the Virus Software?
4) How ofter should I change the
"administrator" password?
5) Can I reformat and install Linux?
Actually, you are alittle off. QDOS was developed by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products. He developed this in his "spare time". QDOS was called "Quick and Dirty Operating System", of which he modeled off CP/M, the popular operating system at the time. He had essentially "reveresed engineered" CP/M, using the CP/M manual as his "specs" for his OS, QDOS.
When IBM tried to buy the rights to use CP/M from Digital Research Inc (DRI), Gary Kildall wasn't available, and his wife and lawyers did not like the non disclosure agreement presented by IBM. So DRI sent IBM packing.
IBM then went back to Microsoft since it was Microsoft who sent IBM to DRI. At the time, IBM had only contracted Microsoft to do the languages and some tools for the IBM PC. IBM needed an OS to run on the PC. Microsoft then "seized" the opportunity and told IBM that they would supply an OS for the system. As "luck" would have it, someone at Microsoft knew about Tim Patterson's QDOS and they pursued it. Microsoft then bought QDOS for $50K from Tim Patterson and Seattle Computer Products. This was the "deal" of a lifetime, since from there DOS royalties jump started the Microsoft engine.
For more info, check History of DOS (PC Museum), one of many sources of information on the subject. Or check Cringely's "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary series.
Yeah, but they should be making AIX boot faster
on
Booting Linux Faster
·
· Score: 1
We had an old RS/6000 model (circa 1995) which took 20 minutes to boot. This was due to it doing a hardware config via X.25 protocol to all devices (e.g. hard drives, etc). "Quality Assurance" to say the least since extensive memory checks, CPU processor checks, etc were performed EVERY TIME AT BOOT. This was *painful* to say the least. After the hardware discovery/configuration was complete, it took 5 minutes for AIX to boot.
This article strikes me as a joke. I am not familiar with their current pSeries systems (which is what the College has now), but I wonder if they take 20+ minutes to perform hardware checks and boot. If so, it's not Linux what you have to worry about!
OK, this junk has got to stop. I now download and automagically install software WITHOUT my knowledge or permission just by visiting a web page.
Where is the ACLU when you need them? Anyone have the phone number to Johnny Cochran? Willie Gary? This has to be a violation of my rights. We as users should be able to SUE to regain our privacy and right to have a "working and functional system".
If someone can sue McDonalds for fatty foods, I'm sure we can sue these companies for BAD software.
Here Here! I experienced "questions" about my "low" GPA from Tech. It never seemed fair to compare GaTech students with students from Stanford, who (rumored) could drop the class the DAY OF THE FINAL.
In Electrical Engineering, it was a WELL KNOWN FACT that all classes was graded on the curve, and the median grade was 75. This meant that if you got a 76, you got a B. The lowest grade to get a C was a 60. This may seem like grade inflation HOWEVER it wasn't, since the tests were horrible and profs always CURVED UP! And if a test had a high average (higher than 75), WATCH OUT! The next test was going to be the equalizer!
And if anyone thinks GaTech has grade inflation, check the retention/graduation rate. Its in the 66-69% range. Brings to light the Freshman Orientation Motto "Look Left, Look Right, One of you *WON'T* be here 4 years from now".
Which is why I am waiting for GameBoy XP. Why buy a newer, faster, better system to play old games? The GameBoy SP is just a creature. I have a GBC and GBA. I won't be buying a GameBoy SP.
When Nintendo creates a game unit that offers *more* than what the GBC offers, I'll get it.
While they can still be backwards compatible with older stuff, and while it pays them to do so, they will. I'm just saying they are alittle TOO backwards compatible for my tastes. I'm ready for the "next level of handheld gaming".
Yes, they can be somewhat backwards compatible, but some day they won't. And compatibility isn't only in the software area but hardware area too.
Notice the form factor of the game cartridges getting smaller? Well, what if GB++ decides to change the shape of the system to ENCLOSE the cartridge in the unit, or have 2 cartridge ports (ala PCMCIA on a laptop). Or better yet, the next cartridge is the size of those tiny Multimedia cards that goes in digital cameras. See, we have a problem. Now if Marketing says "gee, you can't do that because we have to *still* run the GB games". Now they can't "advance" to the next level due to compatibility.
Now I understand you can't do a "fork lift" type of advance, but I can see one day Nintendo GB++ saying "We now only accept GBA games".
Sure the GB is a great concept. Now that they really don't have any competition, it's a great thing to have. But they could be better. In my opinion, the GBA should have never been released as a product with the terrible screen that it has. The first hour I had it on, I thought it wad defective and was about to take it back. The screen was so dark in comparison to the GBC I just knew it was broken. And this is "advanced"? Sounds like 1 step backwards (mono-GB) to me.
OK, let me put it like this for you.
What if I told you that for the last 17 or so years Microsoft stayed stagnant and did not do it's "OS/2" or "Windoze" project. Where would we be today?
All things being the "same", we would have Pentium 3.0GHz PCs running DOS if the processors got better. So we can run DOS stuff *faster*. HOO WEE. We are still limited by hardware, the 640K barrier, etc.
Windows, at first being compatible with DOS, kept the limitation. Now we have Windows XP, based on Windows NT, the first "breakaway" OS from DOS. Don't talk to me about Windows 9X or ME, which are still DOS 7.x OSes.
Now programming, although more complex, has alot of features with it. More stability, etc. Better peripherals, supported "automatically".
Now I have gotten flamed about backwards compatibility. Being backwards compatibility is important, but in the end if you don't do it right will limit you. It will restrict you from doing what you want to do (advance) for the sake of being compatible. After awhile, if you don't cut the line somewhere with compatibility, you will be running DOS on a 3GHz PC.
Note that Windows XP does support *some* DOS apps, but not all. Heck even some Windows 9x programs won't run. That is because M$ has cut the line and stopped offering full compatibility. If they had not, we would still be crashing computers hourly instead of weekly;-)
Now think how much *better* the GB would be if it had VGA like graphics, a joystick or optical mouse like input (with your finger!), etc etc. What Nintendo has done is sold you a GB, GBC, GBA and now a GB SP. One day, they will have to move on or someone else (e.g. Games on Cell Phones, which they are competiting with now) will overtake them.
Sure PS2 owes it's success to being able to run PS1 games. And some backwards compatibility is important.
That is not what I am saying - I am saying that the ability of the GB SP to run mono-GB games is of little value. Being able to run 10 year old games does not help the NEW user, only the existing (and soon to be "ex") user.
Soon, one day, Nintendo will have to cut the mustard like most companies and stop backwards compatibility at some point. For the GB to go to the next level (3D support, joystick, wireless) it may have to loose something. The GB cartidges, since they are physically large, may be the one thing they loose in the next system.
Have you not read M$ own documents about how Windoze could be better if it wasn't for the backwards compatibility to DOS? This is well documented in several places - just do an internet search.
Sure some compatibility is important, but how much? Should I be able to run CP/M programs (which DOS did) on my WinXP P4? And if so, is it really *worth* it? And was it worth M$ time and effort to have this "feature" in the OS?
And, since you brought it up, I'm from the school "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". I ran with Win98 until this year when I was forced to upgrade. I *hate* upgrading. Being one who has upgraded IBM,HP and DEC UNIX systems (OS and HW - I was a UNIX sysadm for years), compatibility is important up to a point - after awhile it limits you as to being able to do NEW things.
Sure compatibility is good for the existing user, but what about the NEW user?
Was compatibility to the GB (which I did not have) important for me when buying the GBA? NO.
Was compatibility to the GBC important to me when I bought the GBA? YES
However, what kind of games I buy now? GBC games. I won't touch a GBA game because it won't run on my GBA. And my GBC games look crappy on my GBA (distoring the screen size/making it bigger) doesn't help.
Now have I "really" improved things here? NO. GBA runs games "better" but the screen is worse. GBC games on a GBC system is the way to go. I would HATE to run a GB game on my GBC system.
Now if I was a NEW user (hmmm - new users are being born every day) then a new system running old stuff (that I could by on resale) doesn't really exite me. The fact that PS2 can run Football98 doesn't exite me. The fact that it can run Football2002 DOES exite me. The fact that it can do MORE than the old system exites me. The gaming market thrives on running new stuff, people buying new games (or add ons), not running old stuff.
I'm just saying that the ability to run games 10 years old (GB has been around atleast that long) may hamper a new system that is trying to be cutting edge. Maybe that is why Nintendo is just now adding a (sorely needed) lite and rechargeable batteries to the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Last year a friend of mine upgraded GirlFriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0 and found that it's a memory hog leaving very little system resources for other applications. He is only now noticing that Wife 1.0 also is spawning Child-Processes which are further consuming valuable resources. No mention of this particular phenomena was included in the product brochure or the documentation, though other users have informed him that this is to be expected due to the nature of the application. Not only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself such that it is always launched at system initialization where it can monitor all other system activity. He's finding that some applications such as PokerNight 10.3, BeerBash 2.5, and PubNight 7.0 are no longer able to run in the system at all, crashing the system when selected (even though they always worked fine before).
At installation, Wife 1.0 provides no option as to the installation of undesired Plug-Ins such as MotherInLaw 55.8 and BrotherInLaw Beta release. Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing day.
The features he'd like to see in the upcoming Wife 2.0 include:
I myself decided to avoid all of the headaches associated with Wife 1.0 by sticking with Girlfriend 2.0. Even here, however, I found many problems. Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 2.0 on top of Girlfriend 1.0. You must uninstall Girlfriend 1.0 first. Other users say this is a long standing bug which I should have been aware of. Apparently the versions of Girlfriend have conflicts over shared use of the I/O port. You think they would have fixed such a stupid bug by now. To make matters worse, the uninstall program for Girlfriend 1.0 doesn't work very well leaving undesirable traces of the application in the system. Another thing that sucks -- all versions of Girlfriend continually pop-up little annoying messages about the advantages of upgrading to Wife 1.0
BUG WARNINGWife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1 before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files before doing the uninstall itself. Then Mistress 1.1 will refuse to install, claiming insufficient resources.
BUG WORK-AROUNDSTo avoid the above bug, try installing Mistress 1.1 on a different system and never run any file transfer applications such as LapLink 6.0. Also, beware of similar shareware applications that have been known to carry viruses that may affect Wife 1.0.
Another solution would be to run Mistress 1.0 via a UseNet provider under an anonymous name. Here again, beware of the viruses which can accidentally be downloaded from the UseNet.
Ya canna change the laws of physics!!!
;-)
Bring back the OLD chart!
If the subwoofer is this big, imagine how big the SPEAKERS are!!!
WE ARE THE BORG
Your existence as you have known it is now over
We will add your Biological and Technological
Distinctiveness to our own
Heat is irrevelant
Cold is irrevelant
Bullets are irrevelant
Grenades are irrevelant
Sunstroke is irrevelant
RESISTENCE IS FUTILE
PREPARE TO BE ASSIMULATED!!!!
Honey, can I borrow your watch? I need to do some shopping!
At this rate (2 Billion per day @ Hotmail), SPAM will overtake McDonald's in "count of persons served."
I'll take mine with ketchup, no mustard...
I wonder how long into the episode before he sleeps with T'Pol or Sato.
I see the Internet and SPAM as part of these three issues:
- "easy to communicate"
- "easy to find"
- "privacy"
The Internet makes it "easy to communicate". That's e-mail, web, etc.
A by-product of "easy to communicate" is "easy to find". That is, some one can look me up easily. Try Googling someone's (listed) phone number. Surprising results are to be found there!
"privacy" means that I am not easy to find. I can be found, but alot has to be done to find me.
"privacy" and "easy to find" are in conflict with each other, of course.
The analogy is your telephone number. Having a phone number, well that's easy to communicate. If it is listed, then you are "easy" to find. If it is unlisted, you are "private" and "hard" to find.
Now I get telemarketers calling me. One would say that is because I am "listed" (e.g. "easy to find"). I find that some of my friends who are "unlisted" also get the same calls. But since "the country" got tired of these calls but still wanted to be "easy to find" we now have a National don't call list. I am not suggesting such legislation be done for e-mail (since telemarketers have a organization, and can be "easy to find", they had to agree and this works here) because the dynamics are different and it won't work. However, before is block list we had "Privacy Manager" for the phone (extra $$/month), Caller ID (extra $$/month), Answering machine and screening (extra cost). None of these DIRECTLY addressed the issue of SPAM. The problem is SPAM, not e-mail.
I think our differences is that I believe that just because you want to be "easy to be found" you should not have to "endure" SPAM. OR in your way, if you don't want SPAM, you shouldn't be "easily found". Don't get me wrong - you may be "private" and anonymous, and that's OK. However, your premise is that if you want to be SPAM free, you should be "private". I say that the problem is SPAM and we should look to eliminate it at the source.
Your suggestions, which are insightful (and ones I have not thought of actually) again are not very workable for me. The school publishes (e.g. web page) my "official" e-mail address. Even so, I would have to scan my "disposable" e-mail addresses for "useful" messages (questions about coming to B-W, etc) coming from person NOT in my classes, etc. A private one for classes is OK, however, I find that students don't e-mail me as much as they call or AIM me. In addition, although your methods are logical, they involve some "extra work" on my part, and at the moment, the "pain" of deleting SPAM isn't cost effective for me to go with your method. I primarily try to "unsubscribe" from most junk - that *does* seem to help. It's the junky bottom feeder stuff that comes in that annoys me the most - ones that don't have a workable "unsubscribe" feature.
Now if we could get rid of the SPAM AIM messages!!!
I think we agree that we "disagree". This has been a good civil conversation via Slashdot. Thanks!
GOOD POINT. GOOD METHOD. I see how this can reduce SPAM. You have implemented basically a private list for e-mail correspondence.
What you are doing is a variation of a theme I've seen before. Some 10+ years ago, someone was stating how they had several mispellings of their name that they used in correspondence (e.g. with creditors, magazine subscriptions, etc). When they received a junk mail with a particular mispelling of their name, they knew the "originator" of the junk mail (e.g. who sold the name info) and would contact the originator to cease and desist (in selling their name).
HOWEVER, you are missing the *good* point of e-mail...that someone "you don't know" can look you up and send you an e-mail. Noting how the "Internet never forgets" (e.g. http://www.archive.org) your old e-mail addresses will *still* be out there, though dead they may be. And people trying to send you an e-mail try look you up (without personally contacting you that is) may possibly see some frustration in the sense that they may find one of your old e-mail addresses.
Then there are people like me who work in education who need a "stable" e-mail address for students, etc to contact me by. Your method wouldn't work for those like me who "need" to be contacted by others not in a private group. (I sometimes wish, though, after deleting the 100th SPAM mail for the day, I could do what you do.)
The problem is SPAM. Your method, though does control what SPAM you see, makes it harder to find you, which is counter productive of what the "Internet" is supposed to do (make it easier to find you). We (the Netizens) need to figure out how get RID of SPAM!
Back on the original topic, I think the "Caller ID for E-Mail" is FUD.
Your solution you propose is also a "no solution".
This may work for you, but it is not practical in the "real world". You state that you have reduced spam, but how do people contact/find you? Maybe you don't get e-mail from friends, families, co-workers, etc on a daily (hourly!) basis, but I do. You solution propose that every so many months, inform everyone "hey, my e-mail address has changed. It's now "blah blah@blah blah.blah". This is like changing your phone number just because you get a telemarketer calling you.
Also since you note you are down to 3-5 spam a month, it just goes to show you that your method is not immune to the "brute force" spamming that is going on.
Now, for a real solution - let's sic the ACLU and personal injury lawyers on the case. That will solve TWO problems we have in the world. If we can only start this up!!!
I can see the FAQ list for this robot...
1) How often should I perform "Windows Update"
to get the service packs required to keep
my robot "functional"?
2) What happens when my robot crashes? Will
it shoot me or commit suicide?
3) What brand of Virus Scanner Software is
compatible for my robot? Also how often
should I update the Virus Software?
4) How ofter should I change the
"administrator" password?
5) Can I reformat and install Linux?
Actually, you are alittle off. QDOS was developed by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer Products. He developed this in his "spare time". QDOS was called "Quick and Dirty Operating System", of which he modeled off CP/M, the popular operating system at the time. He had essentially "reveresed engineered" CP/M, using the CP/M manual as his "specs" for his OS, QDOS.
When IBM tried to buy the rights to use CP/M from Digital Research Inc (DRI), Gary Kildall wasn't available, and his wife and lawyers did not like the non disclosure agreement presented by IBM. So DRI sent IBM packing.
IBM then went back to Microsoft since it was Microsoft who sent IBM to DRI. At the time, IBM had only contracted Microsoft to do the languages and some tools for the IBM PC. IBM needed an OS to run on the PC. Microsoft then "seized" the opportunity and told IBM that they would supply an OS for the system. As "luck" would have it, someone at Microsoft knew about Tim Patterson's QDOS and they pursued it. Microsoft then bought QDOS for $50K from Tim Patterson and Seattle Computer Products. This was the "deal" of a lifetime, since from there DOS royalties jump started the Microsoft engine.
For more info, check History of DOS (PC Museum), one of many sources of information on the subject. Or check Cringely's "Triumph of the Nerds" documentary series.
We had an old RS/6000 model (circa 1995) which took 20 minutes to boot. This was due to it doing a hardware config via X.25 protocol to all devices (e.g. hard drives, etc). "Quality Assurance" to say the least since extensive memory checks, CPU processor checks, etc were performed EVERY TIME AT BOOT. This was *painful* to say the least. After the hardware discovery/configuration was complete, it took 5 minutes for AIX to boot.
This article strikes me as a joke. I am not familiar with their current pSeries systems (which is what the College has now), but I wonder if they take 20+ minutes to perform hardware checks and boot. If so, it's not Linux what you have to worry about!
Google Code Jam 2003
.NET 2003
Program in any language that is supported by Visual Studio
Brought to you by Microsoft, the last word in
programming languages....
P.S. - Other language coders need not apply.
DMCA will be contacting on posting lyrics without a valid copyright!
OK, this junk has got to stop. I now download and automagically install software WITHOUT my knowledge or permission just by visiting a web page.
Where is the ACLU when you need them? Anyone have the phone number to Johnny Cochran? Willie Gary? This has to be a violation of my rights. We as users should be able to SUE to regain our privacy and right to have a "working and functional system".
If someone can sue McDonalds for fatty foods, I'm sure we can sue these companies for BAD software.
Here Here! I experienced "questions" about my "low" GPA from Tech. It never seemed fair to compare GaTech students with students from Stanford, who (rumored) could drop the class the DAY OF THE FINAL.
In Electrical Engineering, it was a WELL KNOWN FACT that all classes was graded on the curve, and the median grade was 75. This meant that if you got a 76, you got a B. The lowest grade to get a C was a 60. This may seem like grade inflation HOWEVER it wasn't, since the tests were horrible and profs always CURVED UP! And if a test had a high average (higher than 75), WATCH OUT! The next test was going to be the equalizer!
And if anyone thinks GaTech has grade inflation, check the retention/graduation rate. Its in the 66-69% range. Brings to light the Freshman Orientation Motto "Look Left, Look Right, One of you *WON'T* be here 4 years from now".
Which is why I am waiting for GameBoy XP. Why buy a newer, faster, better system to play old games? The GameBoy SP is just a creature. I have a GBC and GBA. I won't be buying a GameBoy SP.
When Nintendo creates a game unit that offers *more* than what the GBC offers, I'll get it.
While they can still be backwards compatible with older stuff, and while it pays them to do so, they will. I'm just saying they are alittle TOO backwards compatible for my tastes. I'm ready for the "next level of handheld gaming".
Yes, they can be somewhat backwards compatible, but some day they won't. And compatibility isn't only in the software area but hardware area too.
Notice the form factor of the game cartridges getting smaller? Well, what if GB++ decides to change the shape of the system to ENCLOSE the cartridge in the unit, or have 2 cartridge ports (ala PCMCIA on a laptop). Or better yet, the next cartridge is the size of those tiny Multimedia cards that goes in digital cameras. See, we have a problem. Now if Marketing says "gee, you can't do that because we have to *still* run the GB games". Now they can't "advance" to the next level due to compatibility.
Now I understand you can't do a "fork lift" type of advance, but I can see one day Nintendo GB++ saying "We now only accept GBA games".
Think about it.
Sure the GB is a great concept. Now that they really don't have any competition, it's a great thing to have. But they could be better. In my opinion, the GBA should have never been released as a product with the terrible screen that it has. The first hour I had it on, I thought it wad defective and was about to take it back. The screen was so dark in comparison to the GBC I just knew it was broken. And this is "advanced"? Sounds like 1 step backwards (mono-GB) to me.
;-)
OK, let me put it like this for you.
What if I told you that for the last 17 or so years Microsoft stayed stagnant and did not do it's "OS/2" or "Windoze" project. Where would we be today?
All things being the "same", we would have Pentium 3.0GHz PCs running DOS if the processors got better. So we can run DOS stuff *faster*. HOO WEE. We are still limited by hardware, the 640K barrier, etc.
Windows, at first being compatible with DOS, kept the limitation. Now we have Windows XP, based on Windows NT, the first "breakaway" OS from DOS. Don't talk to me about Windows 9X or ME, which are still DOS 7.x OSes.
Now programming, although more complex, has alot of features with it. More stability, etc. Better peripherals, supported "automatically".
Now I have gotten flamed about backwards compatibility. Being backwards compatibility is important, but in the end if you don't do it right will limit you. It will restrict you from doing what you want to do (advance) for the sake of being compatible. After awhile, if you don't cut the line somewhere with compatibility, you will be running DOS on a 3GHz PC.
Note that Windows XP does support *some* DOS apps, but not all. Heck even some Windows 9x programs won't run. That is because M$ has cut the line and stopped offering full compatibility. If they had not, we would still be crashing computers hourly instead of weekly
Now think how much *better* the GB would be if it had VGA like graphics, a joystick or optical mouse like input (with your finger!), etc etc. What Nintendo has done is sold you a GB, GBC, GBA and now a GB SP. One day, they will have to move on or someone else (e.g. Games on Cell Phones, which they are competiting with now) will overtake them.
Think about it.
Sure PS2 owes it's success to being able to run PS1 games. And some backwards compatibility is important.
That is not what I am saying - I am saying that the ability of the GB SP to run mono-GB games is of little value. Being able to run 10 year old games does not help the NEW user, only the existing (and soon to be "ex") user.
Soon, one day, Nintendo will have to cut the mustard like most companies and stop backwards compatibility at some point. For the GB to go to the next level (3D support, joystick, wireless) it may have to loose something. The GB cartidges, since they are physically large, may be the one thing they loose in the next system.
Have you not read M$ own documents about how Windoze could be better if it wasn't for the backwards compatibility to DOS? This is well documented in several places - just do an internet search.
Sure some compatibility is important, but how much? Should I be able to run CP/M programs (which DOS did) on my WinXP P4? And if so, is it really *worth* it? And was it worth M$ time and effort to have this "feature" in the OS?
And, since you brought it up, I'm from the school "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". I ran with Win98 until this year when I was forced to upgrade. I *hate* upgrading. Being one who has upgraded IBM,HP and DEC UNIX systems (OS and HW - I was a UNIX sysadm for years), compatibility is important up to a point - after awhile it limits you as to being able to do NEW things.
Sure compatibility is good for the existing user, but what about the NEW user?
Was compatibility to the GB (which I did not have) important for me when buying the GBA? NO.
Was compatibility to the GBC important to me when I bought the GBA? YES
However, what kind of games I buy now? GBC games. I won't touch a GBA game because it won't run on my GBA. And my GBC games look crappy on my GBA (distoring the screen size/making it bigger) doesn't help.
Now have I "really" improved things here? NO.
GBA runs games "better" but the screen is worse. GBC games on a GBC system is the way to go. I would HATE to run a GB game on my GBC system.
Now if I was a NEW user (hmmm - new users are being born every day) then a new system running old stuff (that I could by on resale) doesn't really exite me. The fact that PS2 can run Football98 doesn't exite me. The fact that it can run Football2002 DOES exite me. The fact that it can do MORE than the old system exites me. The gaming market thrives on running new stuff, people buying new games (or add ons), not running old stuff.
I'm just saying that the ability to run games 10 years old (GB has been around atleast that long) may hamper a new system that is trying to be cutting edge. Maybe that is why Nintendo is just now adding a (sorely needed) lite and rechargeable batteries to the system.
I wonder how long till the GameBoy XP comes out?
It will run old games in GameBoy9x mode.
Seriously, have they not learned from M$ that staying compatible with older stuff limits you?
And in the year 2002, the first Replicant was born.
In the year 2003, the first Blade Runner was commissioned, to "retire" runaway Replicants.
(Sigh!)