Having recently had to get new number plates, I know from experience that you now need a lot more than this. I had to produce my passport, the vehicle registration document, my driving licence and a utility bill addressed to me. This despite the fact that I was actually having the garage replace them on the car (that is - I'd brought in the car to have the plates changed to euro-style ones so I could take the car to France, and the new plates were the same registration number as the old) and it's a garage where they know me very well. I've used it for nearly 20 years and they'll happily come and pick my car up from my drive, do work on it and then drop it back in my drive, assuming I'll pop in later and pay the bill.
I've run an on-line business and a call back to verify is *not* in itself something to be suspicious of. If you place a high-value order with a retailer, and it's the first time they've heard of you then any sensible business will contact you by phone just to check that everything is in order. This is especially the case if you've requested, for instance, delivery to somewhere other than the card address - e.g. invoice to home address, delivery to work. Some businesses will ask for particularly large orders to be confirmed in writing.
Of course, trying to get the customer to buy something extra is a big no-no.
And its not like you can just use it anywhere. You're either using it on your home network, where it would be a toy not a tool (why wouldn't you use your real computer?) or your using it in an expensive access point, or do they expect you to steal other people's connection?
I teach at a school which is spread over a pretty large site. Wireless networking is available almost everywhere so it would be attractive to me. Much more use when I want to check or record a piece of information than finding a free PC and logging on.
Actually he called it "Alumium", in line with the convention of ending metals in "ium". Then he added the extra "n" to make "Aliminum" and then the extra "i" was added to bring it back into line with the convention.
I recall watching a similarly fast printer (printing phone bills in a Milan telephone exchange as it happens) and keeping it supplied with paper was a full time job for two people. The paper was effectively ordinary fanfold in the usual size of boxes. One person was continually glueing a new box onto the input end whilst another removed box-sized chunks from the other end. The machine was too fast for the paper to re-stack under gravity, so flappy paddle things pushed it down into a stack and an automatic guillotine cut off the stack when it reached a suitable size.
It would have made my code listings a lot faster, but I wasn't allowed to use it.
- case insensitive but case-preserving filesystem (ambiguities in filenames)
Huh!? Much as I like the UNIX programming environment and dislike the Windows one, this isn't a valid criticism of Windows. If anything, this is behaviour that Windows (eventually) got right and UNIX got wrong (and as you say, fixing it in UNIX is a lot more work than just re-compiling).
It's when your filing system thinks that README, ReadMe, Readme, and readme are all different files that you can hit ambiguity problems.
Back in the early eighties, I used to work on Prestel software (a sort of proprietary forerunner of the web). The software worked by having a large number of processes running on the system, each of which handled one function of the service - i.e. process per function rather than process per user. Each logged-on user was allocated a chunk of memory (about 1k) which was then passed from process to process to handle the user's requests. If one process had a bug and failed to hand on the memory chunk then the user saw the system enter a state where it just failed to respond and the symptom was known as a "stuck port".
The trouble was, just about *any* code error would result in this symptom. My immediate manager had latched on to the term and every time it was reported would say, "Ah! We've had this before haven't we? So you know how to fix it.", or "I thought you said you'd fixed this one?" He didn't seem able to comprehend that it was a common symptom of dozens of totally different bugs.
No, you need just the 1st CD to do a thorough workstation or server installation. You can then install additional packages as required over the 'net. All this is set up for you automagically as part of the installation process.
Only if you are installing on a machine with no 'net connection and you need to be able install absolutely *every* package (and there are an awful lot) do you need all 7 CDs.
My mind is boggled by questions like this. Are there really people out there who still use their computers for just one thing at a time?
The machine I'm typing this on (just a simple diskless workstation) currently has 75 different processes running. The server it's connected to has 145. With a dual core processor in either of them, the number of processes able to run simultaneously would be increased by 100%.
The idea of running just one application on your box went out more than 10 years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee.
(If nothing else, all those blasted Flash animations can run without chewing up CPU cycles I would rather use for something else.)
Slashdot Mirror
Having recently had to get new number plates, I know from experience that you now need a lot more than this. I had to produce my passport, the vehicle registration document, my driving licence and a utility bill addressed to me. This despite the fact that I was actually having the garage replace them on the car (that is - I'd brought in the car to have the plates changed to euro-style ones so I could take the car to France, and the new plates were the same registration number as the old) and it's a garage where they know me very well. I've used it for nearly 20 years and they'll happily come and pick my car up from my drive, do work on it and then drop it back in my drive, assuming I'll pop in later and pay the bill.
Further tip - "Effect" and "Affect" are both verbs, but they don't mean the same thing. ("Effect" is also a noun.)
I've run an on-line business and a call back to verify is *not* in itself something to be suspicious of. If you place a high-value order with a retailer, and it's the first time they've heard of you then any sensible business will contact you by phone just to check that everything is in order. This is especially the case if you've requested, for instance, delivery to somewhere other than the card address - e.g. invoice to home address, delivery to work. Some businesses will ask for particularly large orders to be confirmed in writing.
Of course, trying to get the customer to buy something extra is a big no-no.
but can it translate between English and American?
I teach at a school which is spread over a pretty large site. Wireless networking is available almost everywhere so it would be attractive to me. Much more use when I want to check or record a piece of information than finding a free PC and logging on.
John
ITYM "will incense me"
A universally comprehensible message - except that I have no idea what "flipping someone the bird" means.
Actually he called it "Alumium", in line with the convention of ending metals in "ium". Then he added the extra "n" to make "Aliminum" and then the extra "i" was added to bring it back into line with the convention.
Why only in the USA?
Whereas *until* you open the cat it's in an indeterminate state.
John
Not as funny a question as it might sound.
I recall watching a similarly fast printer (printing phone bills in a Milan telephone exchange as it happens) and keeping it supplied with paper was a full time job for two people. The paper was effectively ordinary fanfold in the usual size of boxes. One person was continually glueing a new box onto the input end whilst another removed box-sized chunks from the other end. The machine was too fast for the paper to re-stack under gravity, so flappy paddle things pushed it down into a stack and an automatic guillotine cut off the stack when it reached a suitable size.
It would have made my code listings a lot faster, but I wasn't allowed to use it.
John
Curious that in that version of the exchange, level 19 has become level 23 (although not consistently).
Presumably a case of "Level numbers have been changed to protect the innocent".
John
Why is National Labor Relations Board reduced to NRLB? Are they French or something?
I'm very puzzled by your use of abbreviations for units. You seem to be using (although not entirely consistently):
Wh to mean Watts
and:
W to mean Watt hours
and the previous poster did the same. Is it me or you who is confused?
John
Surely you couldn't make an entire park out of Pleistocene?
Where does it say that only Web traffic was affected?
John
I just happen to have 50 Gmail invitations available at present.
Would anyone like one?
John
Never mind the NT kernel - normal slashes as directory separators have *always* worked in MS systems - right the way back to MS-DOS.
It was always just a cludge in COMMAND.COM/CMD.EXE which prevented their use.
John
At least the map of Australia has all the detail on.
Huh!? Much as I like the UNIX programming environment and dislike the Windows one, this isn't a valid criticism of Windows. If anything, this is behaviour that Windows (eventually) got right and UNIX got wrong (and as you say, fixing it in UNIX is a lot more work than just re-compiling).
It's when your filing system thinks that README, ReadMe, Readme, and readme are all different files that you can hit ambiguity problems.
John
Back in the early eighties, I used to work on Prestel software (a sort of proprietary forerunner of the web). The software worked by having a large number of processes running on the system, each of which handled one function of the service - i.e. process per function rather than process per user. Each logged-on user was allocated a chunk of memory (about 1k) which was then passed from process to process to handle the user's requests. If one process had a bug and failed to hand on the memory chunk then the user saw the system enter a state where it just failed to respond and the symptom was known as a "stuck port".
The trouble was, just about *any* code error would result in this symptom. My immediate manager had latched on to the term and every time it was reported would say, "Ah! We've had this before haven't we? So you know how to fix it.", or "I thought you said you'd fixed this one?" He didn't seem able to comprehend that it was a common symptom of dozens of totally different bugs.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
John
Surely a more compelling application would be a small web *server*?
Then you can use your web browser to access the web server running in your web browser... shortly before it all disappears in a puff of logic.
John
Well, if we're going to be pedantic, 34 km/s is a speed, not a velocity.
John
No, you need just the 1st CD to do a thorough workstation or server installation. You can then install additional packages as required over the 'net. All this is set up for you automagically as part of the installation process.
Only if you are installing on a machine with no 'net connection and you need to be able install absolutely *every* package (and there are an awful lot) do you need all 7 CDs.
John
My mind is boggled by questions like this. Are there really people out there who still use their computers for just one thing at a time?
The machine I'm typing this on (just a simple diskless workstation) currently has 75 different processes running. The server it's connected to has 145. With a dual core processor in either of them, the number of processes able to run simultaneously would be increased by 100%.
The idea of running just one application on your box went out more than 10 years ago. Wake up and smell the coffee.
(If nothing else, all those blasted Flash animations can run without chewing up CPU cycles I would rather use for something else.)
John