Why would I want to watch ageless actors? Really? I haven't seen Avatar, but from the previews, I'm not that impressed by Cameron's "photorealistic" cgi. It seems to be a big deal over nothing to me, but I'd rather watch a movie with a good plot and character substance rather than some fancy cgi effects....maybe that's just me.
Well some of your questions could easily be answered - have you read the book/seen the movie/listened to the This American Life show? The TAL goes in pretty good detail about how he ended up in prison - haven't read the book/seen the movie, but based on what I've heard of both, the events are detailed there too..
Uhh, that was just a "duh" statement thrown in..nothing serious about it....err, if you want to be serious about it, then they're taught in English as opposed to American.
Uhh, it's been 12 years or so, but I studied abroad in Lancaster University in England. They had computer science courses - they're taught in English, and were interesting and had a bit of variety from what I had in the states. I'm sure there's lots of colleges/universities abroad that have c.s courses, but Lancaster had a study abroad relationship with my college so, heh, it was good. Was it worthwhile? Well, yeah, the experience was invaluable, but not so much for the c.s courses, though they were good, but for the experience living abroad in a different culture.
djb's license doesn't prevent redistribution.. you just have to distribute it the way djb wants it.. modifications to the source have to be distributed as patches and any binary distributions must have the same file structures/placements as djb's version. He doesn't prevent distribution, just limits it. Whether that's good is debatable, I guess...
Umm.. granted there's probably be some problems that would crop up in a digital voting scenario, but it can't be any more scary than the current system. I walked into my voting precint last week, and voted without showing any kind of id. All I needed was a name (which I could have easily looked on the list the officials had on the table in front of me), and an address. That's it -go vote for president now. That's pretty damn scary that there's no verification of identity.
True. I remember hearing of them, but I've never bothered to download their app. I looked at it today, but decided that I wasn't really interested in using it. Kahle says they're getting 500,000 people using Alexa day to day, so their rankings, I would think, are not overly accurate. Still an interesting project, especially if/when more people use it.
As I understand it (from the little bit I read on their site, and from stuff gleamed from the interview), there's an program you can download from alexa's site (www.alexa.com). When you run it, I imagine that it tells alexa what sites you're visiting. So their hitcounts are only from people using their program - though I could be wrong.
I guess I'd like to not have all the 'junk' there either, but as I understand it, the people who use Alexa's applet essentially select the content of Alea's database by surfing from site to site. I'd be really interested in how much so called junk moves in the rankings as the internet ages and it becomes less and less of a novelty. I would like to think that a lot of the 'junk' sites would drop in ranking, but who knows?
Uhh, no. Deutsch is the german word for German. In Germany, their country is called Deutschland, or at least that's what I remember from my German classes. So Deutsch == german.I believe you may be thinking of Dutch, which I guess would be spoken in.nl
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the box was place inline with the router as Cringley suggests, then couldn't the box drop packets to certain 'undesireable places' that the FBI doesn't like?
Say the FBI doesn't want anyone to go to site 'X', tahdah!, Carnivoir conviently drops all packets with that destination. It wouldn't shut down the internet, but it sure could make it a lot smaller as far as the end user is concerned.
Never leave home without it. Can I live without it? Yeah, but since I have one, I take it wherever I go. Now I'm never without my phone numbers, appoitments, and addresses. My memory sucks.
Interesting. I took it that Katz was praising Peter Singer for talking about the issues that are often 'taboo' to talk about. How many people do you know, would automatically say, "That's shouldn't be done", when asked about terminating serverly handicapped newborns? Do they even think about the issues involved? Probably not. I think Katz's article was more about applauding people that consider these ideas, and how these ideas and the people that discuss them are often viewed in a bad light, then it was about being in favor of terminating newborns.
The idea of a all in one device sounds good at first thought. I'd love not to have to carry a bunch of gadgets around with me, but then I got to thinking about it. Some things just don't work well when integrated. For example - a cell phone pda combo. If you're talking on the phone, you can't look at the calendar, or addresss book easily at all (at least not in any of the setups I've seen), so I'll carry both a phone and PDA if I have too.
As far as home appliances go, I don't see an all-in-one box their either. The set-top internet boxes for example sound great in theory (internet browsing from the comforts of your couch), but they have a lot of problems yet (IMHO) (ie not supporting javascript/java, low resolutions due to TV, etc..). I dunno.. I guess they're young yet, so those problems may be ironed out.
Is it so hard to add a little bit of documentation to explain what these daemons do/used for, and why an average user does/doesn't need them? Either right on the computer screen or in the text manual. I haven't installed any newish versions in a while so I've no idea if they do any of this yet or not. I think this would be way more valuable than a separate installation that just hides these dameons from the user.
My parents eyes glaze over when I talk about computers to them, but I know both of them are smart enough to read a few paragraphs that an installation program SHOULD have in order to understand, for the most part, what they're doing. Also, they know that they'd be better off in the long run to do a little reading so they have an idea 'what's going on' with the computer later on.
The more information that the newbie can learn/understand, the better off we all are.
not necessarily a good idea
on
Linux Lite?
·
· Score: 2
Yes, there's probably not a real reason to have a lot of the 'default' daemons running - especially for the average user, and yes, Linux should install fairly securly by default, but one have seperate versions ala workstation and server? I don't think so. The installation program should be able to handle a lot of this - and, I personally, believe the user should have some clue what's going on- that may require some reading and understanding on what the installation program is asking. Would reading a few paragraphs kill anyone? Perhaps it would be nice to coddle new users with a 'dumbed' down version of Linux, but why not try to get the user to learn a little bit - that way there's a more intelligent userbase to work with.
It seems that way too many things are 'dumbed' down or over-simplified for the 'average' user - it makes me sick.
9999 was supposedly used as an 'end of data' signifier - especially for data entry programs, which would loop (asking for more data) until a '9999' was entered. So when today's date rolls around the program could interpret it a signal to end. I don't know how many 'production' programs actually used this but I have text books with coding examples that do. I would have thought that a production system would have been a little 'smarter' than using 9's.
Ok, I haven't made it through the chapters yet, but it does seem pretty intersting..glad they're making this available.
I seem to remember seeing a TLC show about Enigma, and how we were able to retrieve a working machine from a captured german submarine before they blew it up. From what I remember, the show alluded that the device seriously helped the cracking of Enigma. Anyone know anymore about this? Did Turing crack it with the help of this captured device?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I want to watch ageless actors? Really? I haven't seen Avatar, but from the previews, I'm not that impressed by Cameron's "photorealistic" cgi. It seems to be a big deal over nothing to me, but I'd rather watch a movie with a good plot and character substance rather than some fancy cgi effects....maybe that's just me.
Wahooo, 3rd place in a marathon!!! That's still a medal. So what if they're an hour behind 2nd, they're in front of 4th.
Um, nope. It's not invite only. Can buy it directly from google (http://google.com/phone)
Well some of your questions could easily be answered - have you read the book/seen the movie/listened to the This American Life show? The TAL goes in pretty good detail about how he ended up in prison - haven't read the book/seen the movie, but based on what I've heard of both, the events are detailed there too..
Uhh, that was just a "duh" statement thrown in ..nothing serious about it....err, if you want to be serious about it, then they're taught in English as opposed to American.
Uhh, it's been 12 years or so, but I studied abroad in Lancaster University in England. They had computer science courses - they're taught in English, and were interesting and had a bit of variety from what I had in the states. I'm sure there's lots of colleges/universities abroad that have c.s courses, but Lancaster had a study abroad relationship with my college so, heh, it was good. Was it worthwhile? Well, yeah, the experience was invaluable, but not so much for the c.s courses, though they were good, but for the experience living abroad in a different culture.
djb's license doesn't prevent redistribution.. you just have to distribute it the way djb wants it.. modifications to the source have to be distributed as patches and any binary distributions must have the same file structures/placements as djb's version. He doesn't prevent distribution, just limits it. Whether that's good is debatable, I guess...
Umm.. granted there's probably be some problems that would crop up in a digital voting scenario, but it can't be any more scary than the current system. I walked into my voting precint last week, and voted without showing any kind of id. All I needed was a name (which I could have easily looked on the list the officials had on the table in front of me), and an address. That's it -go vote for president now. That's pretty damn scary that there's no verification of identity.
True. I remember hearing of them, but I've never bothered to download their app. I looked at it today, but decided that I wasn't really interested in using it. Kahle says they're getting 500,000 people using Alexa day to day, so their rankings, I would think, are not overly accurate. Still an interesting project, especially if/when more people use it.
As I understand it (from the little bit I read on their site, and from stuff gleamed from the interview), there's an program you can download from alexa's site (www.alexa.com). When you run it, I imagine that it tells alexa what sites you're visiting. So their hitcounts are only from people using their program - though I could be wrong.
I guess I'd like to not have all the 'junk' there either, but as I understand it, the people who use Alexa's applet essentially select the content of Alea's database by surfing from site to site. I'd be really interested in how much so called junk moves in the rankings as the internet ages and it becomes less and less of a novelty. I would like to think that a lot of the 'junk' sites would drop in ranking, but who knows?
Uhh, no. Deutsch is the german word for German. In Germany, their country is called Deutschland, or at least that's what I remember from my German classes. So Deutsch == german.I believe you may be thinking of Dutch, which I guess would be spoken in .nl
The latest Mozilla milestone has this also. It's pretty nice.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the box was place inline with the router as Cringley suggests, then couldn't the box drop packets to certain 'undesireable places' that the FBI doesn't like?
Say the FBI doesn't want anyone to go to site 'X', tahdah!, Carnivoir conviently drops all packets with that destination. It wouldn't shut down the internet, but it sure could make it a lot smaller as far as the end user is concerned.
Never leave home without it. Can I live without it? Yeah, but since I have one, I take it wherever I go. Now I'm never without my phone numbers, appoitments, and addresses. My memory sucks.
Interesting. I took it that Katz was praising Peter Singer for talking about the issues that are often 'taboo' to talk about. How many people do you know, would automatically say, "That's shouldn't be done", when asked about terminating serverly handicapped newborns? Do they even think about the issues involved? Probably not. I think Katz's article was more about applauding people that consider these ideas, and how these ideas and the people that discuss them are often viewed in a bad light, then it was about being in favor of terminating newborns.
The idea of a all in one device sounds good at first thought. I'd love not to have to carry a bunch of gadgets around with me, but then I got to thinking about it. Some things just don't work well when integrated. For example - a cell phone pda combo. If you're talking on the phone, you can't look at the calendar, or addresss book easily at all (at least not in any of the setups I've seen), so I'll carry both a phone and PDA if I have too.
As far as home appliances go, I don't see an all-in-one box their either. The set-top internet boxes for example sound great in theory (internet browsing from the comforts of your couch), but they have a lot of problems yet (IMHO) (ie not supporting javascript/java, low resolutions due to TV, etc..). I dunno.. I guess they're young yet, so those problems may be ironed out.
Is it so hard to add a little bit of documentation to explain what these daemons do/used for, and why an average user does/doesn't need them? Either right on the computer screen or in the text manual. I haven't installed any newish versions in a while so I've no idea if they do any of this yet or not. I think this would be way more valuable than a separate installation that just hides these dameons from the user.
My parents eyes glaze over when I talk about computers to them, but I know both of them are smart enough to read a few paragraphs that an installation program SHOULD have in order to understand, for the most part, what they're doing.
Also, they know that they'd be better off in the long run to do a little reading so they have an idea 'what's going on' with the computer later on.
The more information that the newbie can learn/understand, the better off we all are.
Yes, there's probably not a real reason to have a lot of the 'default' daemons running - especially for the average user, and yes, Linux should install fairly securly by default, but one have seperate versions ala workstation and server? I don't think so. The installation program should be able to handle a lot of this - and, I personally, believe the user should have some clue what's going on- that may require some reading and understanding on what the installation program is asking. Would reading a few paragraphs kill anyone? Perhaps it would be nice to coddle new users with a 'dumbed' down version of Linux, but why not try to get the user to learn a little bit - that way there's a more intelligent userbase to work with.
It seems that way too many things are 'dumbed' down or over-simplified for the 'average' user - it makes me sick.
9999 was supposedly used as an 'end of data' signifier - especially for data entry programs, which would loop (asking for more data) until a '9999' was entered. So when today's date rolls around the program could interpret it a signal to end. I don't know how many 'production' programs actually used this but I have text books with coding examples that do. I would have thought that a production system would have been a little 'smarter' than using 9's.
Ok, I haven't made it through the chapters yet, but it does seem pretty intersting..glad they're making this available.
I seem to remember seeing a TLC show about Enigma, and how we were able to retrieve a working machine from a captured german submarine before they blew it up. From what I remember, the show alluded that the device seriously helped the cracking of Enigma. Anyone know anymore about this? Did Turing crack it with the help of this captured device?