Tragic but true. I have a Linux partition for when I want to tinker with stuff, a Windows partition for games (like I'm going to trust it with anything else) and a Mac laptop for actually getting work done...
I can't get X11 (x.org) to play nicely with my X800 Pro. "radeon" drivers says it can't find a matching board, "vesa" straight up hangs, and "vga" has lousy resolution. Could fix it if I could be bothered adding the model to the radeon driver stuff, I'm sure, but can't be bothered right now.
Anyone had any luck with the X800? It's possible I'm doing something wrong...
No. Here's the thing - I don't think the post office is opening my post, especially the stuff in standard window envelopes, reading it, and then putting it back in a new but identical envelope. They might be, but it's illegal, and therefore I don't think it's a significant risk.
Equally, I don't think my ISP is reading my e-mail. They might be, but I'd hope it was illegal. If it's not, I see no reason why bored sys-admins might not grep users e-mail for anything interesting, to pass the time.
Now, if I wanted to know, absolutely, no-one was reading my e-mail, I'd encrypt it. However, I'd like to be reasonably sure no-one's reading the non-encrypted stuff, too...
I was just about to say the same thing. All these people saying "but it'll make my life harder"
Yeah, well, it'll make everyone's life a lot, lot harder when oil becomes infeasible as a fuel source, because there's not enough of it. Sure, maybe we'll find something different, but I'm not risking my future on it.
Which is why I walk. Okay, you're right, I also take buses and trains if I'm going a long way, and have been known to occaisionally take taxis (last sometime around late 2003). If I can do it, I bet most of/. can do it.
Oh, had a great one for this recently. We're involved with a large Europe-wide project, and part of what we're doing is usability testing.
We started looking into this, and then it occured to us to do the project's homepage. The page's content is generated using Javascript. It's a nightmare. It doesn't work on some graphical browsers, on text browsers (as close as I have as a comparison for braille browers) you get nothing to even suggest there's a page there. *sigh*
Oh, while I'm on a roll (just mod me offtopic, I'm ranting here)...
If I'm on your site, you have my attention. Stop trying to get my attention with fancy tricks that break my browser or talk half an hour to download.
Don't resize my browser. If I wanted my browser window to fill the screen, I'd be resized it myself. Equally, if I wanted a poky little window that happens to perfectly fit your site, I can grab that little resize widget myself. It's not like you're saving me effort, as I have to then resize the window back again later.
Don't tell me your site won't work with my browser. Let me try. Chances are, you've mis-detected my browser, and/or haven't tested in three years, and it'll work just fine if you let me in.
I'm not going to click on your banner. Nope. Not a chance. Not happening.
It's not that I'm not interested in your product. Online adverts I see actually tend to be:
1. Something unavailable to me (wrong country). 2. Something of no interest to me. 3. Something I own already (this happens a _lot_ with Gamespy).
But that's not the point. The point is, I'm at the web site because I'm looking for something, and it's probably not your product. When watching TV, I never watch an advert, and immediately decide to research/buy that product. At best I'll make a mental note to have a look out for information on it later, in most cases I won't think about it until I'm looking for that kind of product, at which point I'll probably remember your advert.
An example might be easier. I frequently see adverts for car insurance. I don't drive, for a variety of reasons, but if I was going to learn and buy a car, I'd probably start calling around the companies whose names I remembered from adverts. Well, actually I'd Google for a comparison site, but lets pretend I'm too lazy to do that, okay?
Oh, also, pop-ups/unders are a really good way of persuading me to avoid your company, your advertiser, and whatever site I got the pop-up/under from.
In particular, they're installing software I don't know what does, on my computer (beyond what they tell me it does). That means a complete re-install, to ensure the system maintains clean. That's non an inconsiderable amount of billable time.
Seriously, I'm halfway through re-installing several Linux systems because some of the binary files don't match the MD5s of the RPMs they're installed from (and no, chkrootkit doesn't show anything, nor do the log files).
If I actually used Windows for stuff, this would probably be re-install time...
Wasn't X-Box the last console to market? Like, 18 months after the PS2, if I remember correctly. So, while the X-Box may not have had it's full life, but it's not going to be that early for the next-gen consoles?
Also, isn't the PS2 meant to be coming out in late 2005, early 2006? In which case, it's not going to be all that early, really, is it?
If someone is carrying sensitive data on CD-ROM/DVD-ROM, they are probably better off just trying to snap the disk in half.
DO NOT TRY THIS YOURSELF!
Or at least, for the love of god look away while doing it, most cheap CD-Rs explode into lots of tiny little pieces. I'm not sure how recoverable they are after the data layer is lying in the dust on the floor, but my guess is "not very".
Here's the thing - I'd never write code like that. I'd write pooling code to handle the objects instead. Which would take longer to write, yes, but probably less time to run, and certainly a lot less than allocating and de-allocating objects continuously.
In particular, having proven that method calls, as implemented by G++, are significantly more expensive, obviously a recursive implementation is going to be much slower...
Last time I went to a movie, after putting my mobile in silent mode, I actually searched for other mobiles with Bluetooth, with the intent of sending "Set to silent/turn off" messages. Couldn't find any, felt let down...
> Although this is a step in the right direction, terrorists also seem to be advancing in their use of tank-busting mechanisms.
What? Could you cite references to terrorists using tank-busting weapons? At least having them? The army of a country you're at war with does not count as terrorists...
Would you care to elaborate on what the network guys should have done? None of the articles I can find have much detail, but it would seem that if they can keylog passwords, the network's going to be pretty much an open book.
It's not the missing the release date that gets to me. It's that they didn't announce it was going to be late until a matter of days before the original release date. On top of that, for a game that was meant to be finished 4 months after announcing, we're now at 11 months, which makes me wonder if they ever really believed they'd make that date, or were just winding up the gamers to get them interested.
Well, they've now changed the website. Could someone with one of these routers update to the new firmware (the one released on the 8th), and see if it's actually fixes the problem?
that claims to fix the problem, but I'm tempted to suggest what's happened is they've changed the username and password while they test a full fix. After all, changing data is generally less likely to break stuff than changing code...
Slashdot Mirror
Tragic but true. I have a Linux partition for when I want to tinker with stuff, a Windows partition for games (like I'm going to trust it with anything else) and a Mac laptop for actually getting work done...
I can't get X11 (x.org) to play nicely with my X800 Pro. "radeon" drivers says it can't find a matching board, "vesa" straight up hangs, and "vga" has lousy resolution. Could fix it if I could be bothered adding the model to the radeon driver stuff, I'm sure, but can't be bothered right now.
Anyone had any luck with the X800? It's possible I'm doing something wrong...
No. Here's the thing - I don't think the post office is opening my post, especially the stuff in standard window envelopes, reading it, and then putting it back in a new but identical envelope. They might be, but it's illegal, and therefore I don't think it's a significant risk.
Equally, I don't think my ISP is reading my e-mail. They might be, but I'd hope it was illegal. If it's not, I see no reason why bored sys-admins might not grep users e-mail for anything interesting, to pass the time.
Now, if I wanted to know, absolutely, no-one was reading my e-mail, I'd encrypt it. However, I'd like to be reasonably sure no-one's reading the non-encrypted stuff, too...
I was just about to say the same thing. All these people saying "but it'll make my life harder"
/. can do it.
Yeah, well, it'll make everyone's life a lot, lot harder when oil becomes infeasible as a fuel source, because there's not enough of it. Sure, maybe we'll find something different, but I'm not risking my future on it.
Which is why I walk. Okay, you're right, I also take buses and trains if I'm going a long way, and have been known to occaisionally take taxis (last sometime around late 2003). If I can do it, I bet most of
Generally I use Firefox, however some of the systems I use don't have it installed, and I can't install it on.
Also, is there any way of blocking Flash adverts in Firefox?
Oh, had a great one for this recently. We're involved with a large Europe-wide project, and part of what we're doing is usability testing.
We started looking into this, and then it occured to us to do the project's homepage. The page's content is generated using Javascript. It's a nightmare. It doesn't work on some graphical browsers, on text browsers (as close as I have as a comparison for braille browers) you get nothing to even suggest there's a page there. *sigh*
Oh, while I'm on a roll (just mod me offtopic, I'm ranting here)...
If I'm on your site, you have my attention. Stop trying to get my attention with fancy tricks that break my browser or talk half an hour to download.
Don't resize my browser. If I wanted my browser window to fill the screen, I'd be resized it myself. Equally, if I wanted a poky little window that happens to perfectly fit your site, I can grab that little resize widget myself. It's not like you're saving me effort, as I have to then resize the window back again later.
Don't tell me your site won't work with my browser. Let me try. Chances are, you've mis-detected my browser, and/or haven't tested in three years, and it'll work just fine if you let me in.
Okay, going to go get some actual work done now.
I'm not going to click on your banner. Nope. Not a chance. Not happening.
It's not that I'm not interested in your product. Online adverts I see actually tend to be:
1. Something unavailable to me (wrong country).
2. Something of no interest to me.
3. Something I own already (this happens a _lot_ with Gamespy).
But that's not the point. The point is, I'm at the web site because I'm looking for something, and it's probably not your product. When watching TV, I never watch an advert, and immediately decide to research/buy that product. At best I'll make a mental note to have a look out for information on it later, in most cases I won't think about it until I'm looking for that kind of product, at which point I'll probably remember your advert.
An example might be easier. I frequently see adverts for car insurance. I don't drive, for a variety of reasons, but if I was going to learn and buy a car, I'd probably start calling around the companies whose names I remembered from adverts. Well, actually I'd Google for a comparison site, but lets pretend I'm too lazy to do that, okay?
Oh, also, pop-ups/unders are a really good way of persuading me to avoid your company, your advertiser, and whatever site I got the pop-up/under from.
In particular, they're installing software I don't know what does, on my computer (beyond what they tell me it does). That means a complete re-install, to ensure the system maintains clean. That's non an inconsiderable amount of billable time.
Seriously, I'm halfway through re-installing several Linux systems because some of the binary files don't match the MD5s of the RPMs they're installed from (and no, chkrootkit doesn't show anything, nor do the log files).
If I actually used Windows for stuff, this would probably be re-install time...
You're reading Slashdot and making particle physics jokes, it's a bad start :)
Wasn't X-Box the last console to market? Like, 18 months after the PS2, if I remember correctly. So, while the X-Box may not have had it's full life, but it's not going to be that early for the next-gen consoles?
Also, isn't the PS2 meant to be coming out in late 2005, early 2006? In which case, it's not going to be all that early, really, is it?
If someone is carrying sensitive data on CD-ROM/DVD-ROM, they are probably better off just trying to snap the disk in half.
DO NOT TRY THIS YOURSELF!
Or at least, for the love of god look away while doing it, most cheap CD-Rs explode into lots of tiny little pieces. I'm not sure how recoverable they are after the data layer is lying in the dust on the floor, but my guess is "not very".
Here's the thing - I'd never write code like that. I'd write pooling code to handle the objects instead. Which would take longer to write, yes, but probably less time to run, and certainly a lot less than allocating and de-allocating objects continuously.
Yup - probably because the processor can cache it better (your implementation may even run entirely in registers for the main loop)!
For anyone that wants to try that test themselves, here's a quickly thrown-together for-loop version of the fibo.cpp benchmark.
In particular, having proven that method calls, as implemented by G++, are significantly more expensive, obviously a recursive implementation is going to be much slower...
Also, a quote from the article:
"I was sick of hearing people say Java was slow, when I know it's pretty fast"
Nice, unbiased viewpoint there...
Odd, because Sony has gone to the effort of making a head that will read Blu-Ray, DVD-ROM and CD-ROM:- 026E/
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200405/04
Looks like they're planning on systems that support all three, to me!
Last time I went to a movie, after putting my mobile in silent mode, I actually searched for other mobiles with Bluetooth, with the intent of sending "Set to silent/turn off" messages. Couldn't find any, felt let down...
> Although this is a step in the right direction, terrorists also seem to be advancing in their use of tank-busting mechanisms.
What? Could you cite references to terrorists using tank-busting weapons? At least having them? The army of a country you're at war with does not count as terrorists...
Would you care to elaborate on what the network guys should have done? None of the articles I can find have much detail, but it would seem that if they can keylog passwords, the network's going to be pretty much an open book.
It's not the missing the release date that gets to me. It's that they didn't announce it was going to be late until a matter of days before the original release date. On top of that, for a game that was meant to be finished 4 months after announcing, we're now at 11 months, which makes me wonder if they ever really believed they'd make that date, or were just winding up the gamers to get them interested.
And that's what bugs me.
Well, they've now changed the website. Could someone with one of these routers update to the new firmware (the one released on the 8th), and see if it's actually fixes the problem?
It's just that, according to the site, there's no fix yet:
a sp
n ldID=735
http://kbserver.netgear.com/kb_web_files/n101383.
Now, there is a firmware from the 4th:
http://kbserver.netgear.com/support_details.asp?d
that claims to fix the problem, but I'm tempted to suggest what's happened is they've changed the username and password while they test a full fix. After all, changing data is generally less likely to break stuff than changing code...
It does actually occur, it might be possible to send your TV back to the manufacturer for a re-print. Still, I'd prefer to have it last, myself...