Thos poor guys @ nowhere.com
Anyway, thanks for the tip. I'll try to start using x@x.x or something in the.invalid TLD (mentioned in a post related to my public apology) I'm not quite sure how long it'll take to break the habit, though...
Sorry bout that. Just so you know, you might not want to use nobody@nowhere.com, noone@noone.com, or anything close to the aforementioned address, because sometimes I get creative.
Kind of brings up an interesting idea, thnough... I wonder if anyone was ever using an account named like that because they thought it would be cool, and ended up getting the bejesus spammed out of them.
Yeah, I saw that article, too, but I refrained from quoting,since it's not my style, and I think that although it definitely costs a lot of money, I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to put a price tag on it. I think the results of any poll like that are highly subjective, but it provides backup for my case, so I'll take it. Thanks.
I see a lot of people here defending spam, which is fine. You have a right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. Unfortunately, most people are looking at this from a somewhat U.S.-centric point of view, which allows them to overlook the real cost of spam.
First of all, it's an annoyance. I have to set up filters to get rid of what I can, delete what gets through the filters, and wait for it to d/l from the server (this would be a bigger deal if I was on a modem, rather than cable.) I go to great pains to make sure I get very little spam in my main inbox, by putting noone@nowhere.com in every damn e-mail box I fill out on the internet, unless I really trust the vendor. Friends and family get a second, not-so-important e-mail account to send to, and they get my real address after they show me they're not imbeciles. I shouldn't have to screen people like this, but I do, just to avoid spam.
Secondly, the main reason spammers get put in jail or otherwise reprimanded is because they send out such huge amounts of spam, they crash someone's server, and that someone gets pissed. Even though my cable modem is $50/month regardless of how much spam I get, spam costs someone money, in terms of downtime and misused resources.
Finally, I know that some people pay for their internet connections based on the amount of data transferred (this is for regular consumers, too, in some countries), and if I got charged a flat rate per byte (kilobyte, whatever), I'd be really pissed if every time I checked my mail, I got spam in addition to my real mail. A lot of newbies are probably getting these kind of accounts, and are ending up paying double or triple what they would pay if their inboxes were spam-free.
Spam has real costs, which can be expressed in terms of real dollars, not just in terms of wasted time. It's unfortunate that spammers can send for free. If they had to pay for postage out of their pocket, I think we'd see a lot less of it. I am all for getting spammers to quit.
OK, it seems, that if this makes your processor run half-speed, half of the time, and full speed the rest of the time, your CPU would run at 3/4 its advertised speed.
Would it be possible for someone to write a piece of software (running on Windows, of course) to send this PROCHOT signal (or otherwise trigger it), regardless of the processor's actual temp?
If so, that would seem like some sort of 1/4 denial-of-service attack (assuming a denial-of-service atack consumes all available resources, rather than just making a system sluggish.)
I'm not good with low-level things, so I have no idea if there's any way to send this PROCHOT signal at anything other than a hardware level. If someone could clarify, I'd be grateful.
Not at all. If I had to defend myself infront of a jury, I'd much rather be in front of stupid people.
I'd just do some research into what stupid people can relate to (Pro Wrasslin' and Springer come to mind), and drop a few hints (blatently obvious, of course -- they're stupid) so they knew we were "on the same team" or whatever.
They wouldn't want to wrong one of their own, would they?
I don't think renting apartments is a fair comaprison, since as a consumer, I have the option of purchasing a home, and not having to worry about whether or not my landlord is going to rent to me for the rest of my life.
I don't see any way to purchase a one-time "runs forever" key, without opening up the hacking possibility. They could go with some sort of authentication server, like Quake III's, but that requires an always-on connection (at least while you're using the software), and it requires a server to be maintained, which will probably be liquidated if a company goes under.
I wouldn't mind the software rental policy, IF I had the option to purchase a product outright. Then if I desperately needed to run program X, I could take a look at how long I thought I would be able to rent from the company, and decide whether or not to buy it outright (and give up future patches w/o a surcharge).
Dammit! I even checked the code at sages.ign.com, but they had a bunch of stuff I didn't rememebr, so I should have checked another source. After a quick perusal of GameFaqs, I see that you're right. Thanks for keeping me in line.
The SNES game I remember was Gradius III, and if you did the code without switching to the shoulder buttons instead of the d-pad, you instantly died. I thought that was a nice touch.
And yeah, we're both dorks for continuing this thread.
Hey, I know my refresh rate on my TV. It's up up down down left right left right a b b a.
Hey, I hate to tell you this, but unless you're trying to sneak in a reference to bands of days gone by, your code is wrong. It's up up down down left right left right b a b a. It's the Konami code, most famous (in my mind) for its use in Contra, but it appeared in a lot of other Konami games for the NES and SNES.
It seems to me that this should depend somewhat on how much of the core problem is solved by copied code and/or ideas.
For example, if I have a charting library available to me, and I'm assigned a project in a database course to run some queries, and present the information from those queries in a reasonable manner, I'd be inclined to dump the query results into the charting library, and be done with it.
If the same assignment was given in a graphics class, you can bet I'd be writing my own charting routines.
Obviously, as many before me have stated, you need to check with the instructor first before using any code (even if YOU don't think it's questionable.) Only the instructor knows what they intended you to get out of the project, so only the instructor can determine if reuse of certain pieces of code undermine those intentions.
I live and work in the real world, and I try to write reusable code, and reuse code as much as possible, BUT I think it's still important to at least have a vague idea of how the code you're using works. You can't expect to go through life, and black-box everything.
If you haven't read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, you should. The point of removing grades from a course (or at least witholding them until the end of the course) is brought up, and defended pretty well, if I remember correctly.
The original Doom did have bunny rabbits. At the end, they had the beautiful scene of bunnies frolicking in a field. Of course, as the scene scrolled to the right, you saw the burning remains of a city, with severed bunny heads on a stake.
Still, I found Doom to be an excessively dark game (even with gamma correction), but I respect the artists' decision to go with a dark-themed game. I just probably won't play it.
Why the hell would people be deciding between radio buttons and checkboxes? Radio buttons are for mutually exclusive choices, and checkboxes are for choices which don't affect the availability of other choices.
This is the kind of thing that experience and/or school teaches. I'm not sure which one is better (probably a bit of both; the ratio would depend on your day-to-day activities), but a successful programmer needs something to steer him/her clear of gross errors like giving a user checkboxes to select a font.
Slashdot Mirror
Thos poor guys @ nowhere.com Anyway, thanks for the tip. I'll try to start using x@x.x or something in the .invalid TLD (mentioned in a post related to my public apology) I'm not quite sure how long it'll take to break the habit, though...
Kind of brings up an interesting idea, thnough... I wonder if anyone was ever using an account named like that because they thought it would be cool, and ended up getting the bejesus spammed out of them.
Yeah, I saw that article, too, but I refrained from quoting,since it's not my style, and I think that although it definitely costs a lot of money, I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to put a price tag on it. I think the results of any poll like that are highly subjective, but it provides backup for my case, so I'll take it. Thanks.
First of all, it's an annoyance. I have to set up filters to get rid of what I can, delete what gets through the filters, and wait for it to d/l from the server (this would be a bigger deal if I was on a modem, rather than cable.) I go to great pains to make sure I get very little spam in my main inbox, by putting noone@nowhere.com in every damn e-mail box I fill out on the internet, unless I really trust the vendor. Friends and family get a second, not-so-important e-mail account to send to, and they get my real address after they show me they're not imbeciles. I shouldn't have to screen people like this, but I do, just to avoid spam.
Secondly, the main reason spammers get put in jail or otherwise reprimanded is because they send out such huge amounts of spam, they crash someone's server, and that someone gets pissed. Even though my cable modem is $50/month regardless of how much spam I get, spam costs someone money, in terms of downtime and misused resources.
Finally, I know that some people pay for their internet connections based on the amount of data transferred (this is for regular consumers, too, in some countries), and if I got charged a flat rate per byte (kilobyte, whatever), I'd be really pissed if every time I checked my mail, I got spam in addition to my real mail. A lot of newbies are probably getting these kind of accounts, and are ending up paying double or triple what they would pay if their inboxes were spam-free.
Spam has real costs, which can be expressed in terms of real dollars, not just in terms of wasted time. It's unfortunate that spammers can send for free. If they had to pay for postage out of their pocket, I think we'd see a lot less of it. I am all for getting spammers to quit.
Anyway, my original question still stands: could this "feature" be used to effectively cut a user's clock rating in half?
Would it be possible for someone to write a piece of software (running on Windows, of course) to send this PROCHOT signal (or otherwise trigger it), regardless of the processor's actual temp?
If so, that would seem like some sort of 1/4 denial-of-service attack (assuming a denial-of-service atack consumes all available resources, rather than just making a system sluggish.)
I'm not good with low-level things, so I have no idea if there's any way to send this PROCHOT signal at anything other than a hardware level. If someone could clarify, I'd be grateful.
I'd just do some research into what stupid people can relate to (Pro Wrasslin' and Springer come to mind), and drop a few hints (blatently obvious, of course -- they're stupid) so they knew we were "on the same team" or whatever.
They wouldn't want to wrong one of their own, would they?
I don't see any way to purchase a one-time "runs forever" key, without opening up the hacking possibility. They could go with some sort of authentication server, like Quake III's, but that requires an always-on connection (at least while you're using the software), and it requires a server to be maintained, which will probably be liquidated if a company goes under.
I wouldn't mind the software rental policy, IF I had the option to purchase a product outright. Then if I desperately needed to run program X, I could take a look at how long I thought I would be able to rent from the company, and decide whether or not to buy it outright (and give up future patches w/o a surcharge).
The SNES game I remember was Gradius III, and if you did the code without switching to the shoulder buttons instead of the d-pad, you instantly died. I thought that was a nice touch.
And yeah, we're both dorks for continuing this thread.
Hey, I hate to tell you this, but unless you're trying to sneak in a reference to bands of days gone by, your code is wrong. It's up up down down left right left right b a b a. It's the Konami code, most famous (in my mind) for its use in Contra, but it appeared in a lot of other Konami games for the NES and SNES.
For example, if I have a charting library available to me, and I'm assigned a project in a database course to run some queries, and present the information from those queries in a reasonable manner, I'd be inclined to dump the query results into the charting library, and be done with it.
If the same assignment was given in a graphics class, you can bet I'd be writing my own charting routines.
Obviously, as many before me have stated, you need to check with the instructor first before using any code (even if YOU don't think it's questionable.) Only the instructor knows what they intended you to get out of the project, so only the instructor can determine if reuse of certain pieces of code undermine those intentions.
I live and work in the real world, and I try to write reusable code, and reuse code as much as possible, BUT I think it's still important to at least have a vague idea of how the code you're using works. You can't expect to go through life, and black-box everything.
If you haven't read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, you should. The point of removing grades from a course (or at least witholding them until the end of the course) is brought up, and defended pretty well, if I remember correctly.
Still, I found Doom to be an excessively dark game (even with gamma correction), but I respect the artists' decision to go with a dark-themed game. I just probably won't play it.
Why the hell would people be deciding between radio buttons and checkboxes? Radio buttons are for mutually exclusive choices, and checkboxes are for choices which don't affect the availability of other choices. This is the kind of thing that experience and/or school teaches. I'm not sure which one is better (probably a bit of both; the ratio would depend on your day-to-day activities), but a successful programmer needs something to steer him/her clear of gross errors like giving a user checkboxes to select a font.