Umm, I plugged a VCR into my Commodore 64 monitor with RCA cables. I think my parents are still using that combination as a TV (rabbit ears plugged into the VHS input on the VCR).
Not only will it run SAMBA, but it can take over the domain. When my NT primary domain controller hiccuped a few weeks ago, the backup domain controller forced an election and my G3 with Linux stepped up to the plate. Of course, it didn't authenticate quite as well as my NT box, but still . . . you could run an entire MS network with nothing from MS if you wanted to.
It was my understanding that you couldn't use an NT box and a Samba box as primary and backup domain controllers, because Samba and NT still don't talk to each other properly. They're working on fixing the NT stuff for the new version of Samba.
I can think of several ways to avoid this M$ Tax! Like using a non-M$ OS!
Well, you'd only have to pay for it once, at least. The article said something about getting PCs from OEMs without Windows preinstalled sometimes being more expensive than paying the Microsoft tax. Most Slashdotters can build a box themselves, but for a business with hundreds of computers, that's just really not an option.
I'm impressed that MS would try to pull this while their case is waiting for an appeal.
The regular trial is over; the facts have already been put together. Prior to Judge Jackson's verdict, Microsoft had been behaving themselves. They no longer feel compelled to do so. The appeal will mostly focus on what they had been doing then, not what they're doing now.
As for your first point about pleasing everybody, that's why censoring software usually gives you the option of, say, blocking violence and hate speech but not blocking nudity or profanity. If it worked, this kind of customizability would work for most people.
Some material is not appropriate for children. In particular, material on Web sites that say "you must be 18/21 to enter." If a ten-year-old wants to use a computer in a library, that kind of material should be blocked (assuming we can do it accurately, which is currently not the case). If an 18-year-old is using the computer, they should be able to get to those pages, provided that the computer is set up somewhere where passing children aren't going to be watching.
The same applies to a public school. Schools have rules about what is appropriate and what isn't; those same kinds of rules should apply to 'Net access as well.
Businesses should get to choose what kinds of sites you can and can not visit through their Internet connection.
ISPs, however, should leave the choice up to their customers.
Shift the context maintenance from the cookie to the URL. If you don't want them to understand or mess with the context state, then use obfuscation and hashing liberally.
My Web site uses themes; you can choose how the pages will be displayed. Most of the themes are based on (read: blatently stolen from) various operating systems, so the text shows up as if it were in a window, and that window can look like a Win95 window, a Mac OS window, an X window, etc. Each page is dynamically generated from a Perl script that takes two arguments in the query string (the end of the URL): "page" and "theme". Obviously, "page" indicates the name of the page to be viewed (except on the main home page, which is handled seperately), and "theme" indicates what theme you want to view it in. If "theme" is omitted, it chooses a default theme for you.
The problem with this is that the URL looks somewhat ugly, and if you link to a particular page from somewhere, you'd be linking to the page with a particular theme. I want the theme to be chosen for you automatically the first time you get to the site, since certain themes are not appropriate for certain browsers. That's why I want to use cookies instead - make it a local preference in the browser, and make it persist between sessions (in case you're demented enough to actually go back to my home page someday).
ever noticed how mcdonalds serves nothing but coke, taco bell only pepsi, KFC only pepsi, and so on? I think this is because the soft drink companies together own about 80% of the fast food joints in the nation.
Just FYI, McDonalds and Coca-Cola aren't owned by the same company, but do have an agreement about McDonald's exclusively service Coke products. McDonalds also has agreements with Disney for movie tie-ins; those companies aren't related either - likewise Disney with Mattel, for Ariel/Belle/Pocahontas/Esmerelda/etc. etc. Barbie dolls.
Pepsi-Cola, Frito-Lay, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC were all divisions of PepsiCo, until Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC were spun off into their own seperate company, Tri-Con Global (stock symbol: YUM). Not sure if Tri-Con Global is still wholly owned by PepsiCo or not, and too lazy to check their Web page to find out, but they at least have some ties to Pepsi still. That's why Frito-Lay and the Tri-Con Global restaurants were both doing Star Wars marketing hype, and why most Tri-Con restaurants serve Pepsi beverages, althoguh they're no longer required to (Pepsi is preferred, but if a particular restaurant wants to carry Coke they can).
Disclaimer: I don't really know anything and I'm making all of this up.;-)
Toysrus.com sells information even tho they say in the privacy statement they don't? Welp, add another place not to shop to my list. Does anyone publish a listing of companies that don't sell information to other public/private companies anywhere? I'm sure it would be very useful to some.
I'm thinking the Better Business Bureau might not be a bad place to start.
Single pixel spacing doe not have it's own good purposes. Design the logical layout and then apply style. I sure prefer simple sites to sites that are so obfusciated as to need one pixel spacing...
If browsers weren't so buggy and annoying, we (Web designers) wouldn't need to work around them by using single-pixel GIFs for spacing and such. It is possible to create an attractive design that doesn't get in the way of the content, and easily run into a situation where you need a 1x1 spacer (or something even more annoying) to make it work in HTML.
I was going to say that might not be a good idea since it would destroy the layout of many web sites and negatively affect others. Then I realized that the use of 1x1 images is probably pretty low (since they're normally 'stretched' when used as page layout devices) So, yeah, you've got a decent idea there:)
You'd be surprised. One of the reasons I use 1x1 transparent GIFs is, say I've got a table, and one cell has a background, but no foreground text or graphics - just a background color, or repeating background pattern, and I'm using this cell (probably not very big) for layout and design purposes, because there's no other way to do it. Well, if I don't include that 1x1 GIF, then the browser thinks the table cell is empty and won't render it at all (so I don't get my background). This is remarkably annoying. I used to use instead, but then I started doing these with really small areas where a whole wouldn't fit, so I've switched to 1x1 GIFs. For an example of what I'm talking about, check out my home page.
they can do whatever they want ann they will, for most people thats invisible and they dont give a shit, they wont even notice. If you dont want to be tracked the solution is "DO NOT ACCEPT COOKIES! and clear your cache once in a while...
You're aware, of course, that this breaks a lot of Web sites? Sure, Slashdot still works, although you lose any hope of customization, but most e-commerce sites break. I'm working on figuring out how to use cookies on my home page, just because they're so darned neat, and one of the hardest things to do is gonna be figuring out how to make the site still work if cookies are off. A lot of companies don't bother, and simply require cookies.
I read another set of articles that indicated that the leaks took place last month (mouse), and many months ago (dual processor g4).
Yes, although Apple themselves confirmed the developement of multi-processor G4 systems at WWDC a couple months ago. Nobody was really expecting them to release them at MacWorld, though; many suspected Seybold or perhaps even later (delaying the machines until Mac OS X was ready).
Note that Apple is apparently not chasing after the people who leaked the rumors about the cube, merely about the mouse/keyboard and the MP-G4s.
Note, too, that the early rumors about the new mouse were that it would be wireless, and have pressure-sensitive areas that could be configured (through software) to act as either multiple buttons with a scroll wheel, or as just a single button. AppleInsider had links to an awkward-shaped monstrosity with indentations where your fingers were supposed to go (similar to one of Logitech's trackballs, but without the ball).
While I'm on the subject, I find it rather interesting that everyone thinks highly of AppleInsider and bashes MOSR, yet on many of these rumors, MOSR had more accurate (if less detailed) reports.
The OS sucks architecturally, but has a lot of nice features that are well thought out and well implemented. The interface has been proven time and time again to be truly superior.
One-button mice are easier on the brain psychologically, at least for newbies who aren't accustomed to multi-button mice - and the whole point of the Mac was to make the computer work the way people think, instead of making people think the way computers work. A mouse is not a device you roll around on your desk to move a pointer on the screen. A mouse is an extension of your arm. You don't move the mouse until the pointer lines up over the icon and then press the button - you just point at it and click. Yes, you can learn to click with multiple buttons, but it's not natural, and that's why Apple doesn't want to make you do it. If you want to anyway, you can always get a multiple-button mouse from MacAlly, Logitech, Microsoft and others.
Steve Jobs does have his problems.
If the colors suck so much, then why does EVERYONE copy them? I was in Home Depot the other night, and noticed that they sell fruit-colored translucent plastic studfinders. What's the world coming to?
Yes, the lame-ass lies about performance do suck. Sure, a G4/500 is faster than a P-III/500, but twice as fast as a 1GHz Athlon? I don't think so. Of course, the processor itself is faster than clunky old Mac OS makes it seem - I'll be glad when Mac OS X is finally released.
Windows sucks worse.
Yes, for a desktop machine, Linux does suck, but mostly just for the application support. I still prefer Mac OS, but I'd take Linux over Windows any day, if Linux can run all the apps I need (and depending on what I'm doing, it can).
Yes, X does suck, which is why Mac OS X doesn't use it. I would like to see a port of GTK+, though.
Try it, find out. Be sure to document everything, in case they do try to sue you. If you receive any threatening e-mails, post them to your Web site, regardless of a "this e-mail is confidential and not to be posted" clause. Pretend to be a legitimate rumors site. If they actually get you in court, demonstrate that you made the whole thing up, present your evidence backing up the fact that you have no inside sources, laugh at them, and countersue.
All that aside, though, one conclusion is inescapable: If you look this list over, and measure each system's number of vulnerabilities against the number of its customers, Linux is arguably the worst operating-system product in history, and Microsoft's the best.
OK, he's saying Linux is the worst OS, because it has the most security holes listed on BugTraq. But he also noted "Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10", less than Windows' 37. How can that make Windows the best OS?
Also, how many of those 122 security holes apply to non-RedHat distributions?
No, there are several; that's just the only one I remember by name. Not something I've paid that much attention to, since I'm not in the market to buy one.
I'd say one or two hardware pci modems in existence justifies getting rid of all ISA slots everywhere. yup, perfectly reasonable.
No, but the increased efficiency from a simplified motherboard without the legacy ISA bus does.
I don't post it AC, so if you dont like the joke, you'll know who to flame.
Nothing wrong with the joke, but it's been floating around the Internet for years, and most of us have already seen it several times. Plus, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about Carnivore and the FOIA. If you had posted it to a discussion to a thread relating to Microsoft, Windows, software licensing, etc. that might have been a little more appropriate. Use a little discression next time.
Modems are a waste of an expansion slot, especially a PCI slot. PCI slots are something like 135Mbps, right? The order goes external modems, ISA internals, PCI real modems, then that's it. PCI WinModems have no place.
Wow, how terribly insightful. External modems are great, but they cost considerably more than their internal counterparts (for obvious reasons). And what if I were to tell you that external modems are a waste of a serial port?
There's no advantage of an ISA modem over a PCI modem, except that motherboards have a limited number of PCI slots and you may have more free ISA slots than PCI slots. Keep in mind that many newer motherboards have only one ISA slot, some have none at all, and the PC 2001 specification calls for no ISA slots or devices. This is a Good Thing(tm), as including an ISA bus increases system complexity and reduces efficiency for the whole motherboard.
Saying that a putting a modem on a PCI slot is a waste is a bit like saying running a file server on a K6-2 is a waste, since a 486 would do just fine. Except that you can't buy new 486s (and the motherboards, RAM, etc., although oddly enough AT cases and keyboards seem to still be available).
How many modems can you name that use PCI but aren't 'win'modems?
3Com makes both hardware and WinModem versions of the PCI USR Sportster. I have an old ISA Sportster, and it kicks ass. At least until I get DSL this month.
(Btw, I think slashdot has been very good about sticking to that point. They tend to reject stories that are just unfounded rumors).
You mean like how Slashdot posted a story about Mozilla M16 being out when it wasn't, and then a couple months after M16 was released posted a similar story about M17 being out? Yeah, nothing unfounded there....
I think you missed the point. The RIAA is saying that Napster once advertised that you'd never find unsigned artists on their service (as opposed to mp3.com, which is mostly unsigned artists). Napster is now claiming that unsigned artists is what their service is for.
However; if we were talking about some purely CPU style comparisons, I'd have a hard time believing that the athalon, at twice the clock of a PPC is difficult to compare or has questionable results. I've never used an athalon though so... I will say that lucky for us CPU performance means almost nothing when comparing a 350 PPC to a 700 Athalon. The bottle neck is undoubtably at how many clock cycles are lost waiting on ram, or even cache... and lets not discuss the Hard Drive. I've heard some very good things about the PPCs family design's approach to handling branches [damn brain forgot what the term is for pipelineing both branch results and then discarding one] and waiting for memory. I assumed that the athalon (at least its core) would not be behind on such developments, but maybe its all patented stuff.
Actually the Athlon and G4 are VERY similar architecturally, but the Athlon has an x86 translator stuck on the front end of it that the G4 doesn't, so the Athlon can emulate a clunky old CISC Pentium. That translation slows it way down - otherwise the Athlons would indeed be much faster than G4s.
Now this I didn't know... hmmm.. I hope debian will be similarly optimized. I do think though that to get any good usage out of the altivec feature the programmer has to make particular C calls that now help support it... for example in incrementing all values in a matrix, you could write a function that does it the way you'd think an 80s computer would, or you could find that altivec fuction call that probably helps you out. [thats speculation though don't quote me... can anyone confirm?]. I don't think a compiler could go through a loop on a block of memory and figure "Hey all this could be done in one altivec instruction" because there's just so many ways a loop could be setup and you wouldn't always get optimization, hence making a specific function for it would make sense.
Remember that when you're programming in a high-level language (such as C), each instruction translates to several machine-code instructions. If you simply substitute a big list of AltiVec instructions for that big list of PowerPC instructions, it will be faster. Granted, you're not taking full advantage of AltiVec - but you still get a huge speed improvement. Of course, if you write everything in assembly, it will scream - but then, that's always been the case on other architectures as well.
If a jumper is a protection device to stop people getting at data, then under UK law you could probably be imprisoned for not removing your clothing when a police officer asks you to...
Would it then be legal to run through the streets naked, if a police officer made you remove your clothes? If not, would the officer be asking you to commit a crime?
Slashdot Mirror
--
It was my understanding that you couldn't use an NT box and a Samba box as primary and backup domain controllers, because Samba and NT still don't talk to each other properly. They're working on fixing the NT stuff for the new version of Samba.
Am I mistaken?
--
Well, you'd only have to pay for it once, at least. The article said something about getting PCs from OEMs without Windows preinstalled sometimes being more expensive than paying the Microsoft tax. Most Slashdotters can build a box themselves, but for a business with hundreds of computers, that's just really not an option.
--
The regular trial is over; the facts have already been put together. Prior to Judge Jackson's verdict, Microsoft had been behaving themselves. They no longer feel compelled to do so. The appeal will mostly focus on what they had been doing then, not what they're doing now.
--
--
Some material is not appropriate for children. In particular, material on Web sites that say "you must be 18/21 to enter." If a ten-year-old wants to use a computer in a library, that kind of material should be blocked (assuming we can do it accurately, which is currently not the case). If an 18-year-old is using the computer, they should be able to get to those pages, provided that the computer is set up somewhere where passing children aren't going to be watching.
The same applies to a public school. Schools have rules about what is appropriate and what isn't; those same kinds of rules should apply to 'Net access as well.
Businesses should get to choose what kinds of sites you can and can not visit through their Internet connection.
ISPs, however, should leave the choice up to their customers.
--
Remember OpenCola?
--
My Web site uses themes; you can choose how the pages will be displayed. Most of the themes are based on (read: blatently stolen from) various operating systems, so the text shows up as if it were in a window, and that window can look like a Win95 window, a Mac OS window, an X window, etc. Each page is dynamically generated from a Perl script that takes two arguments in the query string (the end of the URL): "page" and "theme". Obviously, "page" indicates the name of the page to be viewed (except on the main home page, which is handled seperately), and "theme" indicates what theme you want to view it in. If "theme" is omitted, it chooses a default theme for you.
The problem with this is that the URL looks somewhat ugly, and if you link to a particular page from somewhere, you'd be linking to the page with a particular theme. I want the theme to be chosen for you automatically the first time you get to the site, since certain themes are not appropriate for certain browsers. That's why I want to use cookies instead - make it a local preference in the browser, and make it persist between sessions (in case you're demented enough to actually go back to my home page someday).
--
Just FYI, McDonalds and Coca-Cola aren't owned by the same company, but do have an agreement about McDonald's exclusively service Coke products. McDonalds also has agreements with Disney for movie tie-ins; those companies aren't related either - likewise Disney with Mattel, for Ariel/Belle/Pocahontas/Esmerelda/etc. etc. Barbie dolls.
Pepsi-Cola, Frito-Lay, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC were all divisions of PepsiCo, until Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC were spun off into their own seperate company, Tri-Con Global (stock symbol: YUM). Not sure if Tri-Con Global is still wholly owned by PepsiCo or not, and too lazy to check their Web page to find out, but they at least have some ties to Pepsi still. That's why Frito-Lay and the Tri-Con Global restaurants were both doing Star Wars marketing hype, and why most Tri-Con restaurants serve Pepsi beverages, althoguh they're no longer required to (Pepsi is preferred, but if a particular restaurant wants to carry Coke they can).
Disclaimer: I don't really know anything and I'm making all of this up.
--
I'm thinking the Better Business Bureau might not be a bad place to start.
--
If browsers weren't so buggy and annoying, we (Web designers) wouldn't need to work around them by using single-pixel GIFs for spacing and such. It is possible to create an attractive design that doesn't get in the way of the content, and easily run into a situation where you need a 1x1 spacer (or something even more annoying) to make it work in HTML.
--
You'd be surprised. One of the reasons I use 1x1 transparent GIFs is, say I've got a table, and one cell has a background, but no foreground text or graphics - just a background color, or repeating background pattern, and I'm using this cell (probably not very big) for layout and design purposes, because there's no other way to do it. Well, if I don't include that 1x1 GIF, then the browser thinks the table cell is empty and won't render it at all (so I don't get my background). This is remarkably annoying. I used to use instead, but then I started doing these with really small areas where a whole wouldn't fit, so I've switched to 1x1 GIFs. For an example of what I'm talking about, check out my home page.
--
You're aware, of course, that this breaks a lot of Web sites? Sure, Slashdot still works, although you lose any hope of customization, but most e-commerce sites break. I'm working on figuring out how to use cookies on my home page, just because they're so darned neat, and one of the hardest things to do is gonna be figuring out how to make the site still work if cookies are off. A lot of companies don't bother, and simply require cookies.
--
Yes, although Apple themselves confirmed the developement of multi-processor G4 systems at WWDC a couple months ago. Nobody was really expecting them to release them at MacWorld, though; many suspected Seybold or perhaps even later (delaying the machines until Mac OS X was ready).
Note that Apple is apparently not chasing after the people who leaked the rumors about the cube, merely about the mouse/keyboard and the MP-G4s.
Note, too, that the early rumors about the new mouse were that it would be wireless, and have pressure-sensitive areas that could be configured (through software) to act as either multiple buttons with a scroll wheel, or as just a single button. AppleInsider had links to an awkward-shaped monstrosity with indentations where your fingers were supposed to go (similar to one of Logitech's trackballs, but without the ball).
While I'm on the subject, I find it rather interesting that everyone thinks highly of AppleInsider and bashes MOSR, yet on many of these rumors, MOSR had more accurate (if less detailed) reports.
--
One-button mice are easier on the brain psychologically, at least for newbies who aren't accustomed to multi-button mice - and the whole point of the Mac was to make the computer work the way people think, instead of making people think the way computers work. A mouse is not a device you roll around on your desk to move a pointer on the screen. A mouse is an extension of your arm. You don't move the mouse until the pointer lines up over the icon and then press the button - you just point at it and click. Yes, you can learn to click with multiple buttons, but it's not natural, and that's why Apple doesn't want to make you do it. If you want to anyway, you can always get a multiple-button mouse from MacAlly, Logitech, Microsoft and others.
Steve Jobs does have his problems.
If the colors suck so much, then why does EVERYONE copy them? I was in Home Depot the other night, and noticed that they sell fruit-colored translucent plastic studfinders. What's the world coming to?
Yes, the lame-ass lies about performance do suck. Sure, a G4/500 is faster than a P-III/500, but twice as fast as a 1GHz Athlon? I don't think so. Of course, the processor itself is faster than clunky old Mac OS makes it seem - I'll be glad when Mac OS X is finally released.
Windows sucks worse.
Yes, for a desktop machine, Linux does suck, but mostly just for the application support. I still prefer Mac OS, but I'd take Linux over Windows any day, if Linux can run all the apps I need (and depending on what I'm doing, it can).
Yes, X does suck, which is why Mac OS X doesn't use it. I would like to see a port of GTK+, though.
--
--
OK, he's saying Linux is the worst OS, because it has the most security holes listed on BugTraq. But he also noted "Solaris' 34 or NetBSD's 10", less than Windows' 37. How can that make Windows the best OS?
Also, how many of those 122 security holes apply to non-RedHat distributions?
--
No, there are several; that's just the only one I remember by name. Not something I've paid that much attention to, since I'm not in the market to buy one.
I'd say one or two hardware pci modems in existence justifies getting rid of all ISA slots everywhere. yup, perfectly reasonable.
No, but the increased efficiency from a simplified motherboard without the legacy ISA bus does.
--
Nothing wrong with the joke, but it's been floating around the Internet for years, and most of us have already seen it several times. Plus, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about Carnivore and the FOIA. If you had posted it to a discussion to a thread relating to Microsoft, Windows, software licensing, etc. that might have been a little more appropriate. Use a little discression next time.
--
Wow, how terribly insightful. External modems are great, but they cost considerably more than their internal counterparts (for obvious reasons). And what if I were to tell you that external modems are a waste of a serial port?
There's no advantage of an ISA modem over a PCI modem, except that motherboards have a limited number of PCI slots and you may have more free ISA slots than PCI slots. Keep in mind that many newer motherboards have only one ISA slot, some have none at all, and the PC 2001 specification calls for no ISA slots or devices. This is a Good Thing(tm), as including an ISA bus increases system complexity and reduces efficiency for the whole motherboard.
Saying that a putting a modem on a PCI slot is a waste is a bit like saying running a file server on a K6-2 is a waste, since a 486 would do just fine. Except that you can't buy new 486s (and the motherboards, RAM, etc., although oddly enough AT cases and keyboards seem to still be available).
--
3Com makes both hardware and WinModem versions of the PCI USR Sportster. I have an old ISA Sportster, and it kicks ass. At least until I get DSL this month.
--
You mean like how Slashdot posted a story about Mozilla M16 being out when it wasn't, and then a couple months after M16 was released posted a similar story about M17 being out? Yeah, nothing unfounded there....
--
--
Actually the Athlon and G4 are VERY similar architecturally, but the Athlon has an x86 translator stuck on the front end of it that the G4 doesn't, so the Athlon can emulate a clunky old CISC Pentium. That translation slows it way down - otherwise the Athlons would indeed be much faster than G4s.
Now this I didn't know... hmmm.. I hope debian will be similarly optimized. I do think though that to get any good usage out of the altivec feature the programmer has to make particular C calls that now help support it... for example in incrementing all values in a matrix, you could write a function that does it the way you'd think an 80s computer would, or you could find that altivec fuction call that probably helps you out. [thats speculation though don't quote me... can anyone confirm?]. I don't think a compiler could go through a loop on a block of memory and figure "Hey all this could be done in one altivec instruction" because there's just so many ways a loop could be setup and you wouldn't always get optimization, hence making a specific function for it would make sense.
Remember that when you're programming in a high-level language (such as C), each instruction translates to several machine-code instructions. If you simply substitute a big list of AltiVec instructions for that big list of PowerPC instructions, it will be faster. Granted, you're not taking full advantage of AltiVec - but you still get a huge speed improvement. Of course, if you write everything in assembly, it will scream - but then, that's always been the case on other architectures as well.
--
Would it then be legal to run through the streets naked, if a police officer made you remove your clothes? If not, would the officer be asking you to commit a crime?
--