File & Print Sharing is designed to share files & printers.
It's turned-off by default.
If you enable it, it means that you want to share some files or your printer.
So that means that anyone who knows your computer's IP, & can successfully log in, can print from your printer or edit your files.
Calling this a "major bug" is like saying "my web browser lets me look at pr0n, it's a major bug!"
This MAY be a configuration problem in MS's part. But it's not a major bug. In fact, most of the so-called SP2 bugs (aside from an annoying USB2 lack of drivers) are both minor and perfectly expected.
Oh, and the article's simply wrong about the Windows Firewall. There's a rather clear "restore to defaults" setting, which returns the windows firewall to its default few-exceptions state. If you then go to "Exceptions" and enable File and Print Sharing, the default is "my subnet only" for each of the four affected ports.
The problem is: energy production systems need to be universal.
Ah, noooo.
If energy production systems had to be universal, we wouldn't have nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power plants feeding the same grid. And we do. Just in NY.
Breeders are an odd idea because they produce a weapons-grade material -- but they're an excellent idea because they turn what would otherwise be a waste product into a usable power source.
Radioactive "waste" can be processed and re-processed until its virtually lead. It isn't because of "nuclear weapon" concerns, but that's IT.
And I DON'T think giving the likes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Burma, Chechnya, etc. access to plutonium is a good idea under ANY circumstances.
Best idea I ever heard this election season: offer Iran et al a lease with a private corporation to provide and dispose of fissile material. This would get them the high-weight power they want, and remove the chance that they're going to use the fuel for weapons.
If they say "yes", they get the power they say they want. If they say "no"--well, then we get to bomb them.
So his military career consists of committing war crimes.
No. His military career was as a part of a war in which his side committed war crimes. Kerry neither committed a war crime nor personally witnessed any war crime being committed.
Wasn't his one kill for shooting a retreating VC in the back?
That's bit of a mis-statement, but even as you said it there's nothing wrong with it. A soldier in the enemy's army who is trying to regroup can be shot down -- they are, after all, only going to come back and attack again.
Kerry claims his service as a reason to vote for him, so he invites criticism.
Yes, he does. But that's no reason to lie about what he did.
The worst thing that can be said about Kerry is that he was political, he wanted out of the war, and he rode the anti-war crowd to public office while either duping or getting duped in the "Winter Soldier" investigation.
Saying anything more than that is no more credible than "George W. Bush is an Islamic terrorist."
Kerry uses his "heroic" Vietnam career as a campaign point, even as he has admitted that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Not so. Kerry's "we committeed war crimes" was not referring to his own unit. It was referring to the "we" of the Winter Soldier investigation, whose allegations he presented to Congress.
If you take the armed forces in Vietnam as a whole, they DID commit war crimes. Ever hear of Mi Lai? SWVFT seem to want to ignore that when they get all indignant about Kerry saying "we the armed forces committed war crimes."
But how does this change when the ISP develops a P2P client?
Assuming that INDUCE gets passed, Earthlink will be responsible for fixing their P2P app to recognize "digial rights." This may be as simple as adapting Creative Common's sharing scheme, or it could be as convoluted as flagging and enforcing DRM.
Tax cuts, if done for fairness, should be proportional to either Real Income or Tax Paid - but the raw percentage should not be weighted towards those who have the most wealth.
An ideal tax system, IMO, would be a flat tax of 20% or so on all income -- total monies paid to persons, less a small and reasonable set of expenses. (i.e., if you're an investment banker, then it's not fair to tax you on the $10,000,000 you brought in when you only profited $100,000).
To balance this "flat tax" on a progressive scale, we give a flat ammount to all taxpayers - somewhere around $5-10,000 - enough for the preson to survive if they drop down to the basics, thus covering the need for welfare, social security, or the like. Those that make more money will use the payment as a tax write-off.
Yes, this would mean that a lot of people would either pay widely more or widely less. But it'd get rid of poverty, and TOTALLY ELIMINATE the need to have a "welfare to work" program.
MY company actually had been semi-regularly having office celebrations, at which alcohol was served, after which we went back to work, when I began work over three years ago.
In an office environment, there's no real reason not to allow a moderate (i.e., not inebreating) ammount of alcohol.
Re:Is Lego back on firm financial ground?
on
.Net On Lego Mindstorm
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Lego, like D&D or Disney, is a secure enough brand that even if its current owner went belly-up the brand itself would be bought, lock stock and barrel, and someone else would put out Legos.
The only thing that could kill Lego would be someone competing with Lego and doing Lego better--in which case your kids would have leogos, just with a different name.
Yes, there IS innovation--usually in the form of games that do something not done before--but that's not the point.
The point is a cheap way to play games at home. It's a way for your children or spouses or guests to play a game without violating the sanctuary of your PC lair.
Quite simply, where's the science in a fantasy tale about elves and faeries etc.?
Call SciFi the worst named genre ever. Well, aside from Horror which doesn't really scare anyone, or Romance which is less about love and more--well, let's just say lovemaking.
If you walk into a large bookstore and ask where "Lord of the Rings" is filed, they'll look under either "fantasy" or "science fiction." If you actually go over to the section, you'll find that they're eihter right next to each other or entirely intermingled.
In the simplest sense, the left is about change, the right is about preserving the status quo.
Hardly. Our political grammar has been badly harmed by Reublican pundits co-opting the word "Conservative" to mean "right-wing." It may be the only way that liberal right-wing policies of the sort Neo-Conservatives favor could be adapted as party platform, but that only exacerbates the wrong.
There are right-wing science fiction writers. They just don't get invited to left-wing science fiction writer political panels.
Look, *I* didn't come up with the terminology. I'm just trying to distribute clue with regards to the emptimology of the term.
Genre by and large is meaningless, and used only for marketing. The same folk who read 2001 will read LOTR. Those who watch Star Wars will watch Star Trek or Xena.
So LOTR is science fiction too? Right, because there is so much science there?
Actually, there is. LOTR was in many ways a speculative exposition to backup the myriad of languages and linguistic shifts that Tolkein devised.
There's easily as much science behind LOTR as there is behind, oh, 2001 or Issac Assimov's Robot series. It's just not technological science, so it has a clearly different feel.
(and to be really anal, it fits science's "if X, then Y, right?" mold very well.)
It's not my idea. Leave USENET and go talk to a bookseller -- like the GM or owner of a local bookstore. Odds are that they'll be able to backup my statement.
"Speculative Fiction" isn't a historic genere. It's an attempt to redefine "S/F" to mean something broader, and it does make more sense than "Science Fiction". But it's still not a classic genere, and you probably won't find "Speculative fiction" as a section in a bookstore.
Fantasy is a sub-genere of Sci-fi. It was a reinvention of the dead heroic myth genere in the late 19th century after science fiction writers like Jules Verne (!) proved that the novel-reading audience would read blatantly not-true stories.
Any definition you use for the difference between fantasy and sci-fi can be bent or broken by numerous excellent works, even though each subgenere is distinct into itself.
So, "Science Fiction" has three subgenres:
Fantasy, like LOTR or my own (unpublished) novel. Willing to change basic understandings of the universe and disregard Earth entirely.
Hard Sci Fi, like The Time Machine or Asimov's Robot series. Doesn't change any basic knowledge, but instead introduces a few "future developments" and explores their ramification here on Earth.
Soft Sci Fi, like 2001 or Asimov's foundation series, or Star Trek, which change something basic about reality.
Hmm... yeah, SW is fantasy. But it's still part of Sci-Fi.
Why? It isn't feasible. As more computers go into the office, it seems to me that more paperwork is needed... just to take care of those computers.
It's very feasable. It just requires discipline, enforcement, totally outsourced printing, and a method to read that's as strain-free as plain paper.
In 10 years, once we have electronic paper tablets, we'll probably see the paperless office become "practicable." And from there, it'll rise or fall on its own meirts and the basis of its filing system.
Slashdot Mirror
Mormons don't use explosives like that as they are too high tech.
You must be thinking of OMISH.
Mormons are the latter-day-saints crowd from Salt Lake City by way of Upstate NY.
What show did you watch?
The Daily Show had the host asking if it was a green screen, and the actress corrected with blue.
No, not really.
File & Print Sharing is designed to share files & printers.
It's turned-off by default.
If you enable it, it means that you want to share some files or your printer.
So that means that anyone who knows your computer's IP, & can successfully log in, can print from your printer or edit your files.
Calling this a "major bug" is like saying "my web browser lets me look at pr0n, it's a major bug!"
This MAY be a configuration problem in MS's part. But it's not a major bug. In fact, most of the so-called SP2 bugs (aside from an annoying USB2 lack of drivers) are both minor and perfectly expected.
Oh, and the article's simply wrong about the Windows Firewall. There's a rather clear "restore to defaults" setting, which returns the windows firewall to its default few-exceptions state. If you then go to "Exceptions" and enable File and Print Sharing, the default is "my subnet only" for each of the four affected ports.
And when they do, you've got enough cash saved up to just buy a new one.
The problem is: energy production systems need to be universal.
Ah, noooo.
If energy production systems had to be universal, we wouldn't have nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power plants feeding the same grid. And we do. Just in NY.
Breeders are an odd idea because they produce a weapons-grade material -- but they're an excellent idea because they turn what would otherwise be a waste product into a usable power source.
Radioactive "waste" can be processed and re-processed until its virtually lead. It isn't because of "nuclear weapon" concerns, but that's IT.
And I DON'T think giving the likes of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Burma, Chechnya, etc. access to plutonium is a good idea under ANY circumstances.
Best idea I ever heard this election season: offer Iran et al a lease with a private corporation to provide and dispose of fissile material. This would get them the high-weight power they want, and remove the chance that they're going to use the fuel for weapons.
If they say "yes", they get the power they say they want. If they say "no"--well, then we get to bomb them.
I mean, honestly, this isn't rocket science or even programming.
Backup your system. Upgrade to SP2. Test. If something goes wrong and you can't undo the upgrade, restore to your backup.
So his military career consists of committing war crimes.
No. His military career was as a part of a war in which his side committed war crimes. Kerry neither committed a war crime nor personally witnessed any war crime being committed.
Wasn't his one kill for shooting a retreating VC in the back?
That's bit of a mis-statement, but even as you said it there's nothing wrong with it. A soldier in the enemy's army who is trying to regroup can be shot down -- they are, after all, only going to come back and attack again.
Kerry claims his service as a reason to vote for him, so he invites criticism.
Yes, he does. But that's no reason to lie about what he did.
The worst thing that can be said about Kerry is that he was political, he wanted out of the war, and he rode the anti-war crowd to public office while either duping or getting duped in the "Winter Soldier" investigation.
Saying anything more than that is no more credible than "George W. Bush is an Islamic terrorist."
Windows really is: almost 20 years old.
Windows 2k is a rebuild of NT. It dates back to the IBM/MS collaobration on OS/2, which means that it's, at most, about 15 years old.
Kerry uses his "heroic" Vietnam career as a campaign point, even as he has admitted that he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
Not so. Kerry's "we committeed war crimes" was not referring to his own unit. It was referring to the "we" of the Winter Soldier investigation, whose allegations he presented to Congress.
If you take the armed forces in Vietnam as a whole, they DID commit war crimes. Ever hear of Mi Lai? SWVFT seem to want to ignore that when they get all indignant about Kerry saying "we the armed forces committed war crimes."
But how does this change when the ISP develops a P2P client?
Assuming that INDUCE gets passed, Earthlink will be responsible for fixing their P2P app to recognize "digial rights." This may be as simple as adapting Creative Common's sharing scheme, or it could be as convoluted as flagging and enforcing DRM.
Tax cuts, if done for fairness, should be proportional to either Real Income or Tax Paid - but the raw percentage should not be weighted towards those who have the most wealth.
An ideal tax system, IMO, would be a flat tax of 20% or so on all income -- total monies paid to persons, less a small and reasonable set of expenses. (i.e., if you're an investment banker, then it's not fair to tax you on the $10,000,000 you brought in when you only profited $100,000).
To balance this "flat tax" on a progressive scale, we give a flat ammount to all taxpayers - somewhere around $5-10,000 - enough for the preson to survive if they drop down to the basics, thus covering the need for welfare, social security, or the like. Those that make more money will use the payment as a tax write-off.
Yes, this would mean that a lot of people would either pay widely more or widely less. But it'd get rid of poverty, and TOTALLY ELIMINATE the need to have a "welfare to work" program.
MY company actually had been semi-regularly having office celebrations, at which alcohol was served, after which we went back to work, when I began work over three years ago.
In an office environment, there's no real reason not to allow a moderate (i.e., not inebreating) ammount of alcohol.
No.
If you marry a girl, and the girl then changes her name, you don't need to get an all-new marriage.
And without terminal velocity wind!
Sheesh. BIG difference here, fellas.
Lego, like D&D or Disney, is a secure enough brand that even if its current owner went belly-up the brand itself would be bought, lock stock and barrel, and someone else would put out Legos.
The only thing that could kill Lego would be someone competing with Lego and doing Lego better--in which case your kids would have leogos, just with a different name.
Who the hell plays consoles for innovation?
Yes, there IS innovation--usually in the form of games that do something not done before--but that's not the point.
The point is a cheap way to play games at home. It's a way for your children or spouses or guests to play a game without violating the sanctuary of your PC lair.
Quite simply, where's the science in a fantasy tale about elves and faeries etc.?
Call SciFi the worst named genre ever. Well, aside from Horror which doesn't really scare anyone, or Romance which is less about love and more--well, let's just say lovemaking.
If you walk into a large bookstore and ask where "Lord of the Rings" is filed, they'll look under either "fantasy" or "science fiction." If you actually go over to the section, you'll find that they're eihter right next to each other or entirely intermingled.
Then E.A.Poe (1809-1849) wasn't writing fantasy?
No. He was writing either poetry or horror, depending on if you're talking about his original market or the folk who buy his reprints.
The man was most certainly NOT fantasy.
Gulliver's Travels (1675) isn't fantasy?
I believe the 17th century is far back enough to count as part of the "dead heroic myth" genre.
(looks in mirror)
/.)
Yep.
(Looks at bookshelf, thinks of mother, brothers, friends, random aqauintances, most of
Yeah, and the overlap's there too.
In the simplest sense, the left is about change, the right is about preserving the status quo.
Hardly. Our political grammar has been badly harmed by Reublican pundits co-opting the word "Conservative" to mean "right-wing." It may be the only way that liberal right-wing policies of the sort Neo-Conservatives favor could be adapted as party platform, but that only exacerbates the wrong.
There are right-wing science fiction writers. They just don't get invited to left-wing science fiction writer political panels.
Calling Fantasy a subgenre of Sci-fi is absurd.
Look, *I* didn't come up with the terminology. I'm just trying to distribute clue with regards to the emptimology of the term.
Genre by and large is meaningless, and used only for marketing. The same folk who read 2001 will read LOTR. Those who watch Star Wars will watch Star Trek or Xena.
So LOTR is science fiction too? Right, because there is so much science there?
Actually, there is. LOTR was in many ways a speculative exposition to backup the myriad of languages and linguistic shifts that Tolkein devised.
There's easily as much science behind LOTR as there is behind, oh, 2001 or Issac Assimov's Robot series. It's just not technological science, so it has a clearly different feel.
(and to be really anal, it fits science's "if X, then Y, right?" mold very well.)
Your idea doesn't really make sense
It's not my idea. Leave USENET and go talk to a bookseller -- like the GM or owner of a local bookstore. Odds are that they'll be able to backup my statement.
"Speculative Fiction" isn't a historic genere. It's an attempt to redefine "S/F" to mean something broader, and it does make more sense than "Science Fiction". But it's still not a classic genere, and you probably won't find "Speculative fiction" as a section in a bookstore.
Any definition you use for the difference between fantasy and sci-fi can be bent or broken by numerous excellent works, even though each subgenere is distinct into itself.
So, "Science Fiction" has three subgenres:
Fantasy, like LOTR or my own (unpublished) novel. Willing to change basic understandings of the universe and disregard Earth entirely.
Hard Sci Fi, like The Time Machine or Asimov's Robot series. Doesn't change any basic knowledge, but instead introduces a few "future developments" and explores their ramification here on Earth.
Soft Sci Fi, like 2001 or Asimov's foundation series, or Star Trek, which change something basic about reality.
Hmm... yeah, SW is fantasy. But it's still part of Sci-Fi.
Why? It isn't feasible. As more computers go into the office, it seems to me that more paperwork is needed... just to take care of those computers.
It's very feasable. It just requires discipline, enforcement, totally outsourced printing, and a method to read that's as strain-free as plain paper.
In 10 years, once we have electronic paper tablets, we'll probably see the paperless office become "practicable." And from there, it'll rise or fall on its own meirts and the basis of its filing system.