Stop thinking about averages. It's accelerating the whole time, and the 6400mph number is the maximum speed. If it started that last 1.3s at a fairly low speed and only achieved the max towards the end, you'd still come out with an average speed for that segment in the range you mention.
A car that can go 0-60mph in 10s and use 200 feet of road in the process only averages 13mph in that 200 feet, but it's certainly travelling much faster than that at the end.
Bah. I had a 1000RL. That's an 8086 with 512K (Expanded to 768K) RAM, Tandy 16-color graphics, and a 20MB hard drive. It ran Windows 3.0 just damn fine. It wasn't exactly snappy, and I could only run it in CGA high-res monochrome mode...but it worked. I remember writing a couple of school papers using the WordPad predecessor (Write?) it had. I was pretty stingy with drive space and had too much free time, so I'd usually install Windows, do what I needed to do, then remove it.
Windows 3.1 required EGA, so I left that alone until I got my 486.
I said it's perfectly within their rights to do so. It's also perfectly within my rights to consider it a load of bullshit, and vote with my dollars (which I have...the only Mac I own came from a surplus shop, about 5-6 years past its prime).
There's no good (as in technical) reason I can see for not making the built-in disk management utility be able to do what utilities on plenty of other OS's do...query the drive to find out the geometry and go from there. That's the real issue, in my mind...why does the utility *need* a list of drives at all? I highly doubt Win98's fdisk has a big table sitting somewhere with a list of drive ID's and related information. Same goes for the disk utilities on just about every other modern OS.
Unless you check the compatibility lists or buy all your drives from Apple, I have an extremely hard time believing that you've never run across this. I've seen it every time I've ever tried to add a random spare SCSI disk to a Mac. Admittedly I don't work with Macs on a regular basis, so I've only tried to do this maybe 3 times, ever. Different Macs and different drives each time. Most recent would be a 90mhz PowerMac (7200, I think) and a 2gb Seagate disk (don't recall the specific product line or model number), under MacOS 8.5. The built-in drive formatting utility refused to deal with the drive at all. I eventually located a copy of HD Toolkit and used that to format the drive, after which everything was fine...but there's no good reason (aside from platform control and marketing) for the built-in utilities to not be able to work with pretty much any disk (excepting size restrictions and the like, but 2gb disks were hardly unheard of when OS8.5 was released).
I fail to see how you've refuted my point in any way. It's still a clear example of Apple software being coded specifically to only work with certain hardware, which is a pain in the ass for something as commonplace as a hard disk. Especially when Macs were still all SCSI...the only possible excuse for making the software behave in that fashion is to push sales of Apple-branded drives.
Maybe you buy all your drives retail boxed and get little bits of software along with them. I don't. I also pay a little less, because I'm not paying for some software to do what the OS's default tools damn well ought to be able to do in the first place.
Your separation of MacOS and its formatting utility is also pretty half-assed. I certainly consider fdisk a part of DOS, Disk Administrator a part of NT, and the Disk Management utility a part of Win2K. Of course, they are fully within their rights to make their included formatting utility only work with certain disks...but as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty to say that MacOS was designed to recognize a select few disks. All the options you mentioned are hacks and 3rd party workaround programs.
I don't know about OS X, but previous versions of MacOS I've used are very much selective about what hard disks they'll recognize. If it's not on the approved list, the system won't let you do anything with it. There's 3rd party software that gets around this restriction, but of course that's additional cash.
This kind of crap is exactly why the only Mac I own is an old 90mhz PowerMac I picked up for $20 just to have another platform sitting around the house. Sure, the hardware's nice...but I don't like being shoved around just to agree with someone else's vision of how computing should be.
If I remember right, there was a Slashdot article about 2-2.5 years ago where they were doing just that with cats. Had a series of images showing what they reconstructed with data from the optic nerve, directly compared with the same image as viewed by a camera strapped to the cat's head. The images from the nerve were blocky, but the general shapes involved were recognizable. Guess I finally have an answer to my "hmm...wonder when they'll have enough data collected to insert artificial image data into the nerve?" question.
The victim's address gets added to every spam block list out there, rendering him unable to communicate with a significant portion of the internet. Possibly, his ISP (or his job's ISP, if it's a work address) gets listed on an ultra-militant blackout list like SPEWS...further limiting his ability to communicate.
(Think I'm making this kind of shit up? It's happened before. Our office mail server got listed as a spam source once due to one employee clicking a "Tell a friend about this service..." link. Apparently the friend was very much not interested in said service.)
(Even though it's not related to the incident above, our ISP was (and probably still is) listed on SPEWS. I would just like to take a moment and say "fuck SPEWS, fuck the people who run it, and fuck their attitude...all with a jackhammer.")
I agree with you 100%. If you use your phone responsibly then you should be able to use it in a car. If you're not, then a cop can already pull you over for reckless driving. What gets to me is that people don't even care that they're ruining it for the rest of us. Come on, people...turn off your phone when you go out to dinner or movies. Now, why is it legal to have a TV on while you're driving? Has anyone been behind one of these new cars/trucks with the TVs mounted in them so the passengers can watch TV (driver would never watch TV while driving)? Well, if you've been behind one , you know they are the worst invention in the world and should be outlawed right away. You get blinded by this bright light shining back at you, and you pull your hair out as the other driver keeps moving his head to watch it, causing his truck to swerve around.
A few notes to remember bummpyjojo, to prevent your most common mistakes:
1) Your = posessive (ex. "Get your hand off my dick."), you're = contraction of "you are" (ex. "You're a fucking moron.") 2) Their = posessive (ex. "Their dog bit your nutsack."), there = location (ex. "I put your severed testicles over there."), they're = contraction of "they are" (ex. "They're stomping on your testicles.") 3) Than = comparison of two items (ex. "My spelling is better than yours."), then = time/causality (ex. "Satan fucked you in the ass, then threw you into the lake of fire.") 4) Sentences cannot be extended indefinitely with the use of commas.
(It still reads like complete shit even with the fix-ups. Personally, I find the new generation of ultra-bright headlights to be far more dangerous than in-car TV systems.)
Except that the keys aren't generally what anyone cares about when it comes to software licensing investigation. They look for things like packaging, CoA's, purchase receipts, etc. License data stored on the computer will always be secondary to the questions "How many licenses can you prove you've purchased?" and "How many computers have this software installed?"
It's been said before, but if you look at Exchange and Outlook as just being an email server and client, you're missing the point. Of course, most people who run Exchange and Outlook never use the other stuff, but that's not the fault of the programs.
The.H variant of Klez doesn't use other subjects...it has a list of subject structures, some of which are indeed designed to trick the user into thinking it is a protection/removal tool.
What I think is great is the sender address spoofing...I've got a journalist friend who, by nature of his work, has his email address plastered on a lot of his articles. He gets 15-20 automated messages a day, telling him that he sent a Klez-infected message. The downsides of (not very big) fame, I suppose...
Now that you mention it...from NAV/Exchange on one of our servers earlier today:
Sender of the infected attachment: ******
Recipient of the infected attachment: ******
Subject of the message: W32.Klez.E removal tools
One or more attachments were quarantined.
Attachment install.exe was Quarantined for the following reasons:
Virus W32.Klez.H@mm was found.
I've seen several other variations along that theme as well ("Klez immunity", "Elkern removal", etc). Had to happen eventually, I suppose.
I don't see how that really follows from what I said. UTV doesn't provide the constructive resonance that Windows and IE have. UTV is a product in a market that is not directly related to their core business, which is why they didn't have much problem with dropping it. They weren't going to be able to use UTV as leverage for other products, at least not in any reasonable time frame. They realized the whole "convergence" thing hasn't happened yet, and is little more than a dot on the horizon. Thus, it wasn't a good investment.
Also, it's not just about shutting other companies out of markets. It's about money and control. If they let the MPAA sue Replay and Tivo into the ground, they'd just be handing the MPAA precedents and such for when they get around to attacking UTV. So, keeping UTV for that purpose would have been all negatives and no positives.
That's the "good investments" part...it certainly succeeded in rendering Netscape mostly irrelevant. And just because it brings up the heart of the antitrust stuff...it's part of the OS development, really!;)
Nothing empirical, but I consider myself to be a fairly observant person, and often watch others for reactions to my actions. Obviously, according to those rules of courtesy that still exist to some degree in our society, no one's going to walk up to me and say "Hey fucknuts, you're talking too loud!", or give me a dirty look when I can see it, etc. But, when I see other people reacting to someone who is talking too loudly, there are plenty of less obvious things...little looks, perhaps a quick eye-roll, that sort of thing. When I'm on my phone in a public place, I keep an eye out for such things, and if I sense that they are directed at me, then that's a good indicator to check my volume. Thus far, I haven't had but a scant handful of such moments.
If you want to know something that really gets on my nerves, how about people with the 2-way radio feature that leave it on speakerphone mode? Then you hear both sides of the conversation, with the remote side in all its badly-amplified speakerphone glory.
Are people allowed to have conversations in this restaurant? Is a zero-tolerance policy really necessary? The issue at hand is *courtesy*.
When I am speaking on my mobile phone (which is often, not usually by choice, the nature of my job means that I need to be reachable whenever, wherever), it is in a conversational tone and volume. It's a digital phone, so there's no point in talking louder if I start to lose signal...the person on the other end would just get louder clicks and pops. The moment I walk into a restaurant (or just about any enclosed area where I'd feel bad about disturbing others), my phone is set to vibrate.
Yes, there's a whole lot of people out there who talk loud on phones because they think they have to, or they have some desire to make sure everyone around them knows they have a mobile phone...but don't punish all of us who carry mobile phones for the crimes of some.
I bet if someone asked you for your opinion concerning taxes on CD-Rs because "they're always used for piracy", you'd at least say that such taxes are wrong, and probably go into a tirade on why they are. Same fucking thing, buddy. Zero-tolerance policies are bullshit.
Yeah, Packard Bell did a lot of experimentation with oddly-made cases...I seem to recall one that looked like an upside-down T. All that was on the vertical part was the floppy drive, I think. Maybe they had another drive bay in there or something...I never had to open one of them.
My big beef with Acer was the "stylish" ventilation holes. You know, the ones with a rough pattern that fades from large holes to small holes? Damn that shit was ugly.
You're probably seeing IE6 vs IE5.5. IE5.5 was good. Very good. Fast as hell. Stable (I could leave my Win2K box at work up for at least a month, with 6-10 or so IE windows open at any given time).
Then came IE6. Slow. Frequently jumps to 100% CPU usage on even the simplest flash animations (a big problem now that so many ads use those rather than animated GIFs). Crashes frequently.
Unfortunately, uninstalling IE6 isn't exactly an easy task...maybe they'll make 6.5 soon and it'll be as good as 5.5 again.
I can also imagine that some people will become "information hoarders" - never throwing anything away, automatically downloading and keeping anything that might be of use or interest later. That'll happen more if people use software/filesystems that allow for easier organisation/searching.
And this isn't already happening? I have many friends for whom a verfiably-complete collection of rom images for a given game system is a big issue, and let's not even talk about all the people who keep damn near every mp3 they've ever ripped or downloaded (guilty of that one a bit myself). Information hoarding is alive and well, and those that are prone will indeed always find a way to fill it.
I remember this one friend of mine in high school...his dad was obsessed with recording movies and shows off of TV. He had literally thousands of VHS tapes all meticulously labeled and organized. Doesn't even have to be digital storage to activate the information-hoarder gene.
You can't really judge a fighter based on how easy it is to button-mash through the standard single player lineup. Especially in the console versions, the default difficulty is pretty cheesy. It's more about finding out all the strange and unusual things you need to do to unlock extra characters, arenas, modes, and other stuff. Until you've done that, you haven't actually beaten the game. And of course the *real* point of the game is kicking ass against others. Fighting games are most certainly not easy if you have an opponent that knows what they're doing.
Oh..and if you want a really *fun* game for DC (and I think it is available on some other platforms too), check out Rez...take the shooter style of StarFox, mix thoroughly with vector graphics and Tron themes, a splash of interactive soundtrack, and a tiny pinch of psychedelia...beautiful
I put a TV in my bathroom and used a wireless video sender thingy to transmit whatever's on the main set/stereo to it. One of the best improvements ever in home enjoyment. Need to take a shit during a movie? No prob, just cut on the TV in the bathroom.
Also great for lounging in the bathtub, but I won't go much further on that description, as I've probably already flooded your mind with evil images of wet, naked geekdom.
There's also a serial terminal next to the TV. Great for when you're in an IRC flamewar, but nature is calling with high priority.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop thinking about averages. It's accelerating the whole time, and the 6400mph number is the maximum speed. If it started that last 1.3s at a fairly low speed and only achieved the max towards the end, you'd still come out with an average speed for that segment in the range you mention.
A car that can go 0-60mph in 10s and use 200 feet of road in the process only averages 13mph in that 200 feet, but it's certainly travelling much faster than that at the end.
Bah. I had a 1000RL. That's an 8086 with 512K (Expanded to 768K) RAM, Tandy 16-color graphics, and a 20MB hard drive. It ran Windows 3.0 just damn fine. It wasn't exactly snappy, and I could only run it in CGA high-res monochrome mode...but it worked. I remember writing a couple of school papers using the WordPad predecessor (Write?) it had. I was pretty stingy with drive space and had too much free time, so I'd usually install Windows, do what I needed to do, then remove it.
Windows 3.1 required EGA, so I left that alone until I got my 486.
If you think RPM is in any way, shape, or form as refined and robust as apt, you've got issues.
I said it's perfectly within their rights to do so. It's also perfectly within my rights to consider it a load of bullshit, and vote with my dollars (which I have...the only Mac I own came from a surplus shop, about 5-6 years past its prime).
There's no good (as in technical) reason I can see for not making the built-in disk management utility be able to do what utilities on plenty of other OS's do...query the drive to find out the geometry and go from there. That's the real issue, in my mind...why does the utility *need* a list of drives at all? I highly doubt Win98's fdisk has a big table sitting somewhere with a list of drive ID's and related information. Same goes for the disk utilities on just about every other modern OS.
Unless you check the compatibility lists or buy all your drives from Apple, I have an extremely hard time believing that you've never run across this. I've seen it every time I've ever tried to add a random spare SCSI disk to a Mac. Admittedly I don't work with Macs on a regular basis, so I've only tried to do this maybe 3 times, ever. Different Macs and different drives each time. Most recent would be a 90mhz PowerMac (7200, I think) and a 2gb Seagate disk (don't recall the specific product line or model number), under MacOS 8.5. The built-in drive formatting utility refused to deal with the drive at all. I eventually located a copy of HD Toolkit and used that to format the drive, after which everything was fine...but there's no good reason (aside from platform control and marketing) for the built-in utilities to not be able to work with pretty much any disk (excepting size restrictions and the like, but 2gb disks were hardly unheard of when OS8.5 was released).
I fail to see how you've refuted my point in any way. It's still a clear example of Apple software being coded specifically to only work with certain hardware, which is a pain in the ass for something as commonplace as a hard disk. Especially when Macs were still all SCSI...the only possible excuse for making the software behave in that fashion is to push sales of Apple-branded drives.
Maybe you buy all your drives retail boxed and get little bits of software along with them. I don't. I also pay a little less, because I'm not paying for some software to do what the OS's default tools damn well ought to be able to do in the first place.
Your separation of MacOS and its formatting utility is also pretty half-assed. I certainly consider fdisk a part of DOS, Disk Administrator a part of NT, and the Disk Management utility a part of Win2K. Of course, they are fully within their rights to make their included formatting utility only work with certain disks...but as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty to say that MacOS was designed to recognize a select few disks. All the options you mentioned are hacks and 3rd party workaround programs.
I don't know about OS X, but previous versions of MacOS I've used are very much selective about what hard disks they'll recognize. If it's not on the approved list, the system won't let you do anything with it. There's 3rd party software that gets around this restriction, but of course that's additional cash.
This kind of crap is exactly why the only Mac I own is an old 90mhz PowerMac I picked up for $20 just to have another platform sitting around the house. Sure, the hardware's nice...but I don't like being shoved around just to agree with someone else's vision of how computing should be.
If I remember right, there was a Slashdot article about 2-2.5 years ago where they were doing just that with cats. Had a series of images showing what they reconstructed with data from the optic nerve, directly compared with the same image as viewed by a camera strapped to the cat's head. The images from the nerve were blocky, but the general shapes involved were recognizable. Guess I finally have an answer to my "hmm...wonder when they'll have enough data collected to insert artificial image data into the nerve?" question.
The victim's address gets added to every spam block list out there, rendering him unable to communicate with a significant portion of the internet. Possibly, his ISP (or his job's ISP, if it's a work address) gets listed on an ultra-militant blackout list like SPEWS...further limiting his ability to communicate.
(Think I'm making this kind of shit up? It's happened before. Our office mail server got listed as a spam source once due to one employee clicking a "Tell a friend about this service..." link. Apparently the friend was very much not interested in said service.)
(Even though it's not related to the incident above, our ISP was (and probably still is) listed on SPEWS. I would just like to take a moment and say "fuck SPEWS, fuck the people who run it, and fuck their attitude...all with a jackhammer.")
I agree with you 100%. If you use your phone responsibly then you should be able to use it in a car. If you're not, then a cop can already pull you over for reckless driving. What gets to me is that people don't even care that they're ruining it for the rest of us. Come on, people...turn off your phone when you go out to dinner or movies. Now, why is it legal to have a TV on while you're driving? Has anyone been behind one of these new cars/trucks with the TVs mounted in them so the passengers can watch TV (driver would never watch TV while driving)? Well, if you've been behind one , you know they are the worst invention in the world and should be outlawed right away. You get blinded by this bright light shining back at you, and you pull your hair out as the other driver keeps moving his head to watch it, causing his truck to swerve around.
A few notes to remember bummpyjojo, to prevent your most common mistakes:
1) Your = posessive (ex. "Get your hand off my dick."), you're = contraction of "you are" (ex. "You're a fucking moron.")
2) Their = posessive (ex. "Their dog bit your nutsack."), there = location (ex. "I put your severed testicles over there."), they're = contraction of "they are" (ex. "They're stomping on your testicles.")
3) Than = comparison of two items (ex. "My spelling is better than yours."), then = time/causality (ex. "Satan fucked you in the ass, then threw you into the lake of fire.")
4) Sentences cannot be extended indefinitely with the use of commas.
(It still reads like complete shit even with the fix-ups. Personally, I find the new generation of ultra-bright headlights to be far more dangerous than in-car TV systems.)
Except that the keys aren't generally what anyone cares about when it comes to software licensing investigation. They look for things like packaging, CoA's, purchase receipts, etc. License data stored on the computer will always be secondary to the questions "How many licenses can you prove you've purchased?" and "How many computers have this software installed?"
Just a little note...most people who do illegal things don't plan on getting caught.
It's been said before, but if you look at Exchange and Outlook as just being an email server and client, you're missing the point. Of course, most people who run Exchange and Outlook never use the other stuff, but that's not the fault of the programs.
.H variant of Klez doesn't use other subjects...it has a list of subject structures, some of which are indeed designed to trick the user into thinking it is a protection/removal tool.
The
What I think is great is the sender address spoofing...I've got a journalist friend who, by nature of his work, has his email address plastered on a lot of his articles. He gets 15-20 automated messages a day, telling him that he sent a Klez-infected message. The downsides of (not very big) fame, I suppose...
I don't see how that really follows from what I said. UTV doesn't provide the constructive resonance that Windows and IE have. UTV is a product in a market that is not directly related to their core business, which is why they didn't have much problem with dropping it. They weren't going to be able to use UTV as leverage for other products, at least not in any reasonable time frame. They realized the whole "convergence" thing hasn't happened yet, and is little more than a dot on the horizon. Thus, it wasn't a good investment.
Also, it's not just about shutting other companies out of markets. It's about money and control. If they let the MPAA sue Replay and Tivo into the ground, they'd just be handing the MPAA precedents and such for when they get around to attacking UTV. So, keeping UTV for that purpose would have been all negatives and no positives.
That's the "good investments" part...it certainly succeeded in rendering Netscape mostly irrelevant. And just because it brings up the heart of the antitrust stuff...it's part of the OS development, really! ;)
As to the broken transformer, your average universal adapter will give the proper voltage (9V DC), as well as the proper connector.
Nothing empirical, but I consider myself to be a fairly observant person, and often watch others for reactions to my actions. Obviously, according to those rules of courtesy that still exist to some degree in our society, no one's going to walk up to me and say "Hey fucknuts, you're talking too loud!", or give me a dirty look when I can see it, etc. But, when I see other people reacting to someone who is talking too loudly, there are plenty of less obvious things...little looks, perhaps a quick eye-roll, that sort of thing. When I'm on my phone in a public place, I keep an eye out for such things, and if I sense that they are directed at me, then that's a good indicator to check my volume. Thus far, I haven't had but a scant handful of such moments.
If you want to know something that really gets on my nerves, how about people with the 2-way radio feature that leave it on speakerphone mode? Then you hear both sides of the conversation, with the remote side in all its badly-amplified speakerphone glory.
Are people allowed to have conversations in this restaurant? Is a zero-tolerance policy really necessary? The issue at hand is *courtesy*.
When I am speaking on my mobile phone (which is often, not usually by choice, the nature of my job means that I need to be reachable whenever, wherever), it is in a conversational tone and volume. It's a digital phone, so there's no point in talking louder if I start to lose signal...the person on the other end would just get louder clicks and pops. The moment I walk into a restaurant (or just about any enclosed area where I'd feel bad about disturbing others), my phone is set to vibrate.
Yes, there's a whole lot of people out there who talk loud on phones because they think they have to, or they have some desire to make sure everyone around them knows they have a mobile phone...but don't punish all of us who carry mobile phones for the crimes of some.
I bet if someone asked you for your opinion concerning taxes on CD-Rs because "they're always used for piracy", you'd at least say that such taxes are wrong, and probably go into a tirade on why they are. Same fucking thing, buddy. Zero-tolerance policies are bullshit.
Yeah, Packard Bell did a lot of experimentation with oddly-made cases...I seem to recall one that looked like an upside-down T. All that was on the vertical part was the floppy drive, I think. Maybe they had another drive bay in there or something...I never had to open one of them.
My big beef with Acer was the "stylish" ventilation holes. You know, the ones with a rough pattern that fades from large holes to small holes? Damn that shit was ugly.
They started to make shit PCs, and went the way of Packard Bell and other shit manufacturers. Good riddance.
You're probably seeing IE6 vs IE5.5. IE5.5 was good. Very good. Fast as hell. Stable (I could leave my Win2K box at work up for at least a month, with 6-10 or so IE windows open at any given time).
Then came IE6. Slow. Frequently jumps to 100% CPU usage on even the simplest flash animations (a big problem now that so many ads use those rather than animated GIFs). Crashes frequently.
Unfortunately, uninstalling IE6 isn't exactly an easy task...maybe they'll make 6.5 soon and it'll be as good as 5.5 again.
I can also imagine that some people will become "information hoarders" - never throwing anything away, automatically downloading and keeping anything that might be of use or interest later. That'll happen more if people use software/filesystems that allow for easier organisation/searching.
And this isn't already happening? I have many friends for whom a verfiably-complete collection of rom images for a given game system is a big issue, and let's not even talk about all the people who keep damn near every mp3 they've ever ripped or downloaded (guilty of that one a bit myself). Information hoarding is alive and well, and those that are prone will indeed always find a way to fill it.
I remember this one friend of mine in high school...his dad was obsessed with recording movies and shows off of TV. He had literally thousands of VHS tapes all meticulously labeled and organized. Doesn't even have to be digital storage to activate the information-hoarder gene.
You can't really judge a fighter based on how easy it is to button-mash through the standard single player lineup. Especially in the console versions, the default difficulty is pretty cheesy. It's more about finding out all the strange and unusual things you need to do to unlock extra characters, arenas, modes, and other stuff. Until you've done that, you haven't actually beaten the game. And of course the *real* point of the game is kicking ass against others. Fighting games are most certainly not easy if you have an opponent that knows what they're doing.
Oh..and if you want a really *fun* game for DC (and I think it is available on some other platforms too), check out Rez...take the shooter style of StarFox, mix thoroughly with vector graphics and Tron themes, a splash of interactive soundtrack, and a tiny pinch of psychedelia...beautiful
I put a TV in my bathroom and used a wireless video sender thingy to transmit whatever's on the main set/stereo to it. One of the best improvements ever in home enjoyment. Need to take a shit during a movie? No prob, just cut on the TV in the bathroom.
Also great for lounging in the bathtub, but I won't go much further on that description, as I've probably already flooded your mind with evil images of wet, naked geekdom.
There's also a serial terminal next to the TV. Great for when you're in an IRC flamewar, but nature is calling with high priority.