TO repeat, it does respect MACs and uses the same kind of frames, so other network equipment on the same LAN can ignore it just fine. The protocool does allow for IP as well.
Gibson are making MaGIC an open standard. At the moment it's basically an extension to MIDI, but room is left to support other protocols too. It does use the Ethernet standard, including MACs, so it should be able to work on the same LAN as other equipment. A provision is made to accommodate IP headers, but they are optional.
HTTP/1.0 was stateless, but 1.1 changed things substantially, oh, 5 or 6 years back. Chunked transfers added the ability to resume transfers, and of course persistent connections came in at the same time, along with with a range negitiation possibilties nearly as flexible and confusing as what FTP impos^H^H^H^H^Hoffers.
Uploading: HTTP/1.1 supports this just as well as FTP. Client software that supports this can be pretty lame, but this isn't a protocol issue, just a reflection of the idea that more people seem to be interested in writing presentation-oriented browser thingies than no-nonsense command line tools. wget is a nice attempt, but this area is still wide open territory for all those people who want to think up a decent utility to write that no one else has already done a thousand times over.
The only feature that FTP supports at the protocol level that nothing else really offers to the same degree is the explicit separation of the command and transfer streams. With more and more firewalling and NATing forcing FTP users to negotiate PASV mode, this amounts to an anachronism. HTTP's rich support for proxying offers a much more flexible way to provide the same feature, of course, namely the ability to send files from a host or interface other than the one that received the client request.
So: protocol-wise, FTP and HTTP/1.1 are about equal. In terms of client software, FTP still has an edge.
It looks like the impression that would be left if someone pressed their nekkid butt against a glass door. Does that kind of thing happen a lot in Oregon or something?
g++ compiles modern C++ programs out of the box. Open Watcom 1.0 is still in need of an up to date standard library. I'm sure it will catch up, but it's not quite there yet -- even chokes on a trivial hello word using the current standards.
The name alludes to open standards (XPG4, CORBA, DCE and so on) rather than open source. In other words, it works and plays well with others, and you can port your favorite toys to it.
I regularly spend extended periods of time in nitrogen-rich environments (nearly 80 percent!) and have yet to explode, despite the fact that I sometimes smoke in such places.
I didn't really have in mind something you'd throw into your dashboard. The DAT Walkman models are really nice for taking out and recording new material, as opposed to copying or playing back prerecorded stuff. Really nice stuff for indy musicians who can't exactly afford the heavy duty toys. (Bootleggers love 'em too, more power to them.) PC-based recording is almost catching up, but the machines are still way too bulky and fragile for taking out to shows. Fair enough, they're sold as computers, not recorders!
Traditional compact cassettes lose big time once you start worrying about mixing and dubbing later, unless you want to buy something a lot more expensive, bigger and with less recording time than that little DAT thingy.
The big drawback as mentioned earlier is that you tend to be stuck with analog output if you want flexibility, but it's a lot less hassle than trying to compensate on the fly.
DAT wasn't all that expensive. Consumer versions of it (and other digital tape and disc formats of the time) were all hobbled by SCMS. This is a lot of what prompted the *AA to lobby for mandatory copy protection; given a choice, the marketplace shunned it.
The DMCA does require new VCRs to use Macrovision. This isn't digital rights manglement, but it's still a pain in the ass.
Re:Hardware prices in 1991...
on
The 1991 "X-Box"
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Don't think so. In 1992 I picked up a CD-ROM drive at Radio Shack for $200. I'm also quite certain that at about that time I picked up a cheap PC (Multitech/Acer I think) for under $1000 that had a VGA card with composite out (and I remember thinking this was silly since NTSC was hopeless for 80-column text).
Bah. The only reason there aren't Smarts on the road in the US is that DC aren't making them available. It appears that when they do finally show up, they may only be offered in a mutated four seat version =(
VMS is just as vulnerable as anything else to poor password choices, inappropriate group and ACL access, and so on. I ran into plenty of VMS systems set up so that all normal users had the VMS equivalent to root. (VMS accounts have a whole slew of access flags, and the permissions granted by each aren't always obvuis by the names.)
The CLI forces the first few characters of each command to be unique, so you generally don't have to type in the full command names. It's just a good idea to spell them out in full when writing scripts.
Now, I've heard from many sources that compiled Java class bytecode can be easily decompiled to source. Is this not fundamentally the case with any bytecode mechanism?
It's pretty much true true of any executable program. You can turn it into some kind of source code (at least assembly code if not the original higher level language). The.NET bytecode is in pretty much the same boat. If a dumb ol' computer can figure out what the instructions do, so can you.
What you don't usually get from these reversal processes are the original variable names and comments, but given the output of some programmers this might even be a plus.
Rebuilding the "skeleton" part of Liberty was already figured out for the rehab about 15 years ago. Where the laser mapping gets interesting is for the problem of refabricating any damaged plates. If that part isn't done exactly, preserving defects and all, it's going to show.
I wrote Yahoo about this problem just about a year ago, after finding no explanation in their online help on about how visually impaired users were supposed to use their service, and this is what they had to say.
I kind of thought this sucked, that apparently the solution is to wait for a human operator to read the feedback form and phone you back. Surely someone can come up with a better system.
=-=-=-=
Hello,
Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Account Services.
If you are a visually impaired or blind user, please fill out the feedback form at:
http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/edit/cgi_access
A customer care representative will call you back, to assist you with registering for a Yahoo! account.
If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.
Regards,
Yahoo! Customer Care
For assistance with all Yahoo! services, please visit:
Perhaps a silly question, but what is making Limewire so slow on the Mac? I'd been under the impression that Apple put a fair amount of work into making Java work well under OS X.
By comparison, it takes ages to start up under NT/XP, but moves along fine once it's done with the initialization thingies.
That Nexel/Metro type of racking is a lot sturdier than it looks in the photo. All that open space lets air circulate and reduces the surface area for dust to build. Shelving like that beats finding out that you have just the right amount of rack space for the your new toy but the available holes don't line up.
Slashdot Mirror
TO repeat, it does respect MACs and uses the same kind of frames, so other network equipment on the same LAN can ignore it just fine. The protocool does allow for IP as well.
Gibson are making MaGIC an open standard. At the moment it's basically an extension to MIDI, but room is left to support other protocols too. It does use the Ethernet standard, including MACs, so it should be able to work on the same LAN as other equipment. A provision is made to accommodate IP headers, but they are optional.
Who would win?
Someone finally got rootless mode working on Cygwin? Neat.
HTTP/1.0 was stateless, but 1.1 changed things substantially, oh, 5 or 6 years back. Chunked transfers added the ability to resume transfers, and of course persistent connections came in at the same time, along with with a range negitiation possibilties nearly as flexible and confusing as what FTP impos^H^H^H^H^Hoffers.
Uploading: HTTP/1.1 supports this just as well as FTP. Client software that supports this can be pretty lame, but this isn't a protocol issue, just a reflection of the idea that more people seem to be interested in writing presentation-oriented browser thingies than no-nonsense command line tools. wget is a nice attempt, but this area is still wide open territory for all those people who want to think up a decent utility to write that no one else has already done a thousand times over.
The only feature that FTP supports at the protocol level that nothing else really offers to the same degree is the explicit separation of the command and transfer streams. With more and more firewalling and NATing forcing FTP users to negotiate PASV mode, this amounts to an anachronism. HTTP's rich support for proxying offers a much more flexible way to provide the same feature, of course, namely the ability to send files from a host or interface other than the one that received the client request.
So: protocol-wise, FTP and HTTP/1.1 are about equal. In terms of client software, FTP still has an edge.
It looks like the impression that would be left if someone pressed their nekkid butt against a glass door. Does that kind of thing happen a lot in Oregon or something?
g++ compiles modern C++ programs out of the box. Open Watcom 1.0 is still in need of an up to date standard library. I'm sure it will catch up, but it's not quite there yet -- even chokes on a trivial hello word using the current standards.
The name alludes to open standards (XPG4, CORBA, DCE and so on) rather than open source. In other words, it works and plays well with others, and you can port your favorite toys to it.
I regularly spend extended periods of time in nitrogen-rich environments (nearly 80 percent!) and have yet to explode, despite the fact that I sometimes smoke in such places.
excerpt from http://c64upgra.de/c-one/s_about.htm: " . . .fills a sorely needed gap in the hobbyist computer market."
'Nuff said.
Yes, the price and date were correct. Tandy did indeed sell the CDR-1000 for $200 in 1992. List was about $350, but they went on sale frequently.
Traditional compact cassettes lose big time once you start worrying about mixing and dubbing later, unless you want to buy something a lot more expensive, bigger and with less recording time than that little DAT thingy.
The big drawback as mentioned earlier is that you tend to be stuck with analog output if you want flexibility, but it's a lot less hassle than trying to compensate on the fly.
DAT wasn't all that expensive. Consumer versions of it (and other digital tape and disc formats of the time) were all hobbled by SCMS. This is a lot of what prompted the *AA to lobby for mandatory copy protection; given a choice, the marketplace shunned it.
The DMCA does require new VCRs to use Macrovision. This isn't digital rights manglement, but it's still a pain in the ass.
Don't think so. In 1992 I picked up a CD-ROM drive at Radio Shack for $200. I'm also quite certain that at about that time I picked up a cheap PC (Multitech/Acer I think) for under $1000 that had a VGA card with composite out (and I remember thinking this was silly since NTSC was hopeless for 80-column text).
Bah. The only reason there aren't Smarts on the road in the US is that DC aren't making them available. It appears that when they do finally show up, they may only be offered in a mutated four seat version =(
VMS is just as vulnerable as anything else to poor password choices, inappropriate group and ACL access, and so on. I ran into plenty of VMS systems set up so that all normal users had the VMS equivalent to root. (VMS accounts have a whole slew of access flags, and the permissions granted by each aren't always obvuis by the names.)
The CLI forces the first few characters of each command to be unique, so you generally don't have to type in the full command names. It's just a good idea to spell them out in full when writing scripts.
Now, I've heard from many sources that compiled Java class bytecode can be easily decompiled to source. Is this not fundamentally the case with any bytecode mechanism?
It's pretty much true true of any executable program. You can turn it into some kind of source code (at least assembly code if not the original higher level language). The .NET bytecode is in pretty much the same boat. If a dumb ol' computer can figure out what the instructions do, so can you.
What you don't usually get from these reversal processes are the original variable names and comments, but given the output of some programmers this might even be a plus.
Rebuilding the "skeleton" part of Liberty was already figured out for the rehab about 15 years ago. Where the laser mapping gets interesting is for the problem of refabricating any damaged plates. If that part isn't done exactly, preserving defects and all, it's going to show.
The graphics basically don't work with OCR.
I wrote Yahoo about this problem just about a year ago, after
finding no explanation in their online help on about how
visually impaired users were supposed to use their service,
and this is what they had to say.
I kind of thought this sucked, that apparently the solution
is to wait for a human operator to read the feedback
form and phone you back. Surely someone can come up with
a better system.
=-=-=-=
Hello,
Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Account Services.
If you are a visually impaired or blind user, please fill out the
feedback form at:
http://add.yahoo.com/fast/help/us/edit/cgi_access
A customer care representative will call you back, to assist you with
registering for a Yahoo! account.
If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.
Regards,
Yahoo! Customer Care
For assistance with all Yahoo! services, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/
Perhaps a silly question, but what is making Limewire so slow on the Mac? I'd been under the impression that Apple put a fair amount of work into making Java work well under OS X.
By comparison, it takes ages to start up under NT/XP, but moves along fine once it's done with the initialization thingies.
You can keep the byte orientation and still have Unicode support. See this.
The LCD buttons are neat toys, NKK make some and even have little rubber covers and gaskets for use in wet areas.
... severe.
A good source for small video-style LCD panels are optics vendors, the sort who sell microscopes and related goodies. The markups can be
That Nexel/Metro type of racking is a lot sturdier than it looks in the photo. All that open space lets air circulate and reduces the surface area for dust to build. Shelving like that beats finding out that you have just the right amount of rack space for the your new toy but the available holes don't line up.