From TA: "If internet users can't understand the language used to describe these risks, they are going to find it hard to protect themselves from being ripped off."
And if road users don't understand warnings like "Slow down" and "Icy road", then they shouldn't be driving.
Oh, and their definition of "trojan" is a bit wrong... "a malicious piece of software which installs itself on a person's computer without their knowledge"? Software doesn't install itself. Something or someone installs it. And with classic trojans, the user installs or runs it thinking it is something else.
I've not tried that as I don't own the game. Virtual PC runs Windows XP at a respectable speed, until it uses up the 256mb RAM (I allocated 128mb to XP, but had other apps running in OSX at the same time).
I'm sure if it can emulate Windows at a reasonable speed (seemed to run as smoothly as it does on my 2GHz Celeron Vaio), then it's CPU is definitely up to the task of running World of Warcraft. I'm not sure of the graphics requirements of the game though.
I have noticed that if I'm running, say, jEdit, iTunes, Firefox, Opera, X11 and a few random X apps (Konqueror and Kate) all at the same time, then it can get a bit slow. 256mb RAM isn't really enough for a busy machine which is also runnning an Xserver.
It's definitely suitable for most "normal" users though:-)
The Mac Mini (in its default/cheapest config) is perfectly good for surfing the web, checking mail and playing music and DVDs. And it's affordable. I know because I had mine pre-ordered and have been using it ever since it arrived.
Apple's OS software tends to get faster with every release, so you can be sure that Tiger will work fine on a Mac Mini. In fact we have it running on a Mini at work.
If you want a Mac, buy one instead of your next PC. If you really dislike the Mini, iBooks are cheap on E-bay.
And what's processing the embed tags? mshtml.dll. And isn't that part of the OS? Internet Explorer is just a desktop application using mshtml.dll as the rendering engine, as some other apps do (help for example). An HTML rendering engine shouldn't have access to hardware like that.
Sorry for assuming he wasn't talking about a Mac. Statistically it's likely to be a PC.
I find your assumption of zealotry amusing since I mainly use Sun workstations and PCs, and only use Macs for the occasional presentation/letter/playing music/web surfing. Yeah, I was referring to the Mac Mini which is ideal for most tasks (if you put 512mb RAM in it).
"News for Nerds". What percentage of nerds don't already posess a monitor and keyboard?
the computer is nothing more than a TOOL and not a decoration
I disagree. I decorate my room with computers, you insensitive clod. I have one atatched to the wall behind me. This is Slashdot after all.
Citrix sucks compared to X anyway, except on the ease-of-use factor for the majority of business desktop users (open browser, click link on homepage, enter password, application appears). Come to think of it, I've seen X running that way too.
X uses a lot less resources on the machine where the application is actually be executed. It's only a matter of time before people start running apps in Wine on Windows, just so that the output can be displayed in a browser via X11. That'll be the best thing since sliced bread.
Specifying the name of the network interface that a server process listens on surely takes less time and effort than integrating a firewall with the operating system (like SP2 does). I really don't understand why they didn't just fix the problem in the first place instead of hiding it behind a firewall.
Routers configured to do NAT will help as you say. I really wish they wouldn't hide the standard router functionality though (I've seen some in stores like PC World that appear to ONLY do NAT). Choice is good, and not everyone actually wants NAT.
Slashdot Mirror
I have that problem in my room at the moment (it's about Spring here - still cold outside). I'm not looking forward to what it'll be in the summer.
I had a Playstation 2 in my rack for a while and it pushed the temp up by about 8 degrees C. Nasty.
A single fullscreen button, in a dim shade of blue, whith white writing on it.
Depends what your locale settings are ;-)
From TA: "If internet users can't understand the language used to describe these risks, they are going to find it hard to protect themselves from being ripped off."
And if road users don't understand warnings like "Slow down" and "Icy road", then they shouldn't be driving.
Oh, and their definition of "trojan" is a bit wrong... "a malicious piece of software which installs itself on a person's computer without their knowledge"? Software doesn't install itself. Something or someone installs it. And with classic trojans, the user installs or runs it thinking it is something else.
I used the Fink source code packages. Everthing worked fine. I miss KScope though, and it's not available in Fink (or Debian, so it would appear).
I've not tried that as I don't own the game. Virtual PC runs Windows XP at a respectable speed, until it uses up the 256mb RAM (I allocated 128mb to XP, but had other apps running in OSX at the same time).
I'm sure if it can emulate Windows at a reasonable speed (seemed to run as smoothly as it does on my 2GHz Celeron Vaio), then it's CPU is definitely up to the task of running World of Warcraft. I'm not sure of the graphics requirements of the game though.
I have noticed that if I'm running, say, jEdit, iTunes, Firefox, Opera, X11 and a few random X apps (Konqueror and Kate) all at the same time, then it can get a bit slow. 256mb RAM isn't really enough for a busy machine which is also runnning an Xserver.
:-)
It's definitely suitable for most "normal" users though
*yawn*
The Mac Mini (in its default/cheapest config) is perfectly good for surfing the web, checking mail and playing music and DVDs. And it's affordable. I know because I had mine pre-ordered and have been using it ever since it arrived.
Apple's OS software tends to get faster with every release, so you can be sure that Tiger will work fine on a Mac Mini. In fact we have it running on a Mini at work.
If you want a Mac, buy one instead of your next PC. If you really dislike the Mini, iBooks are cheap on E-bay.
Ruth? At least she wasn't called Penny.
Nobody should be slamming Thief, or GTA, or CS. They're just games. Games for ADULTS, and as such are rated 18.
The news here is that Senator Clinton admits that parents and/or retailers aren't paying the least bit of attention to age ratings on games.
Its only a matter of time before US ISPs are required to filter news like this...
We store it? What't wrong with just deleting it? I wouldn't have used it if i didn't want to permanently throw it away.
I use everything. Whatever's nearest. I'm lazy.
;-)
Anyway, Suns are better than Macs and Peecees.
And what's processing the embed tags? mshtml.dll. And isn't that part of the OS? Internet Explorer is just a desktop application using mshtml.dll as the rendering engine, as some other apps do (help for example). An HTML rendering engine shouldn't have access to hardware like that.
Re: your sig
It would be called "My Butt Wiper"
Sorry for assuming he wasn't talking about a Mac. Statistically it's likely to be a PC.
I find your assumption of zealotry amusing since I mainly use Sun workstations and PCs, and only use Macs for the occasional presentation/letter/playing music/web surfing. Yeah, I was referring to the Mac Mini which is ideal for most tasks (if you put 512mb RAM in it).
"News for Nerds". What percentage of nerds don't already posess a monitor and keyboard?
i bought a $2000 machine
A $600 Mac could do that at the same speed as a 2GHz Pentium.
Beanscene? (if you borrow someone's MAC address)
I'll probably regret the bandwidth usage, but here's a copy:
http://www.sorn.net/misc/CtrlAltDel.asf
Netcraft confirms it!
You do realise that if that *ever* happens, it'll cost more than the Mac version. It would probably be cheaper overall to buy a Mac Mini.
the computer is nothing more than a TOOL and not a decoration
I disagree. I decorate my room with computers, you insensitive clod. I have one atatched to the wall behind me. This is Slashdot after all.
Citrix sucks compared to X anyway, except on the ease-of-use factor for the majority of business desktop users (open browser, click link on homepage, enter password, application appears). Come to think of it, I've seen X running that way too.
X uses a lot less resources on the machine where the application is actually be executed. It's only a matter of time before people start running apps in Wine on Windows, just so that the output can be displayed in a browser via X11. That'll be the best thing since sliced bread.
No, Windows has the holes before the worms get there.
Are you referring to the Borg-esque icon on the right of the slashdot article?
Specifying the name of the network interface that a server process listens on surely takes less time and effort than integrating a firewall with the operating system (like SP2 does). I really don't understand why they didn't just fix the problem in the first place instead of hiding it behind a firewall.
Routers configured to do NAT will help as you say. I really wish they wouldn't hide the standard router functionality though (I've seen some in stores like PC World that appear to ONLY do NAT). Choice is good, and not everyone actually wants NAT.