Having recently graduated from college I can say that I really wished my university had done this. For years (yeah I sluff off) the T1 connection was great. Then enter everyone getting a computer along with Napster and (insert file sharing program name here) and the entire network went into the shit can. It got so bad towards the end that they had to allocate extra bandwidth from somewhere (that was costly). Still there were a lot of political aguments such as "well the students are paying for it, blah blah blah". So I guess in the end it's not as simple as just using common sense once politics starts getting involved...
But I wonder about the seti thing... why don't they just enter some dummy code into the client? If the server says "we've hit our cap", then the screen saver acts like it's doing something productive, while it just spins it's wheels and does nothing (like a real screensaver)
Generally just about every table coloring problem can be solved by wraping a main table with an outside table which specifies the background color (not to hard). But then again I've been doing compatability between IE and N4 so long that this is like second nature to me.
And IE only does very generic tables well. Try using some of the interesting border types like dotted or dashed... they look like shit on IE.
Well linux itself is only at version 2.5 so who cares? Of course one has to wonder, if version numbers really do have something to do with software evolution, why doesn't emacs rule the universe?
Re:I honestly can't figure out
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
They seem to be touting portability, but what kind of portability?
.NET - works on the x-box too! Man now THAT's portability!
"Take this example: you have a highly competent NT/2K administrator (they do exist) and a pitiful *nix administrator."
Every time someone brings this up I keep thinking it's sort of redundant. I guess, being a rather pitiful administrator in both respects; I find it easier to at least start locking down a unix box (FreeBSD in my case). With Unix you can tighten a box up instantly just by looking through hosts.allow (and hosts.deny in Linux's case) - it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on. By contrast windows has a lot more to do with disabling services which (in my opinion) you're never sure what they do or if you need them. And sooner or later you'll end up fishing in the registry...
To me Unix systems are easier to secure because security is a part of the system, and not an afterthought / "oh so we're getting bad press so we'll start an inititive" sort of deal.
Actually the clear optical mouse is probably the only mouse that is cool enough to say "I'll deal with one button". It actually doesn't have any buttons, you push the whole mouse down. Breaks up the boredom when you watch PC users sit down at a Mac and try to figure that one out...
Well that's just it, by default the computer comes with a one button mouse. At the place I used to work they eventually got rid of the puck mouse for the much cooler clear plastic optical one. Eventually someone else took that for their own computer (probably because it looked cool), and we just plugged in a logitech first mouse.
Using a Mac with a scrolling wheel and two buttons is really very nice, I just wish apple would start to get with the program and migrate to two buttons (maybe even with a wheel) all together. My personal view is that people tend to use the keyboard, or the mouse, but generally don't use them both together. I consider myself one of the few exeptions as I tend to use shift+click in Mozilla (crippled badly in.97). But maybe Mac people are used to it.
"The Apple Pro Keyboard also comes with full-sized keys for Page Up and Down, Home and End, Insert and forward Delete.."
Oh wow!
Nice to see apple finally backed down from having stupid irregular key sizes. I think using the idiotic small arrow keys (along with the small F keys) along with the stupid puck mouse on a G3 scarred me for life . Now for the mouse button thing...
Unfortunatly I think x86 is going to keep going as it is until it eventually hits a brick wall (and who knows when that will be). Then it will probably switch over to multiprocessing, and eventually people will have to finally move to something else.
Of course this is the point where open source has the last laugh, and all you need to do is recompile (in theory anyway). I'm surprised people don't try to market that as a selling point of open source more often...
To me that's where MS is going to have a problem. I don't think any sort of aquisition will help. Security is a mindset. To MS security has always been an after thought after everything else is done. More money isn't the solution. More programmers isn't the solution. The programmers they already have need to "see the light" first. Then they have to do is fix all their stuff, and some of it i imagine couldn't really be made secure unless they rebuilt it from the ground up. Can MS really do this considering their applications tie into just about everything else on the OS? That remains to be seen.
I remember some MS propaganda stating that Linux and other Unix based OS's inherited 30 years of vunerabilities, yet NT was wonderfully secure because it was a much more modern OS. NOW they're making security a priority? Don't tell me M$ has been lying to me!
Sure it might work on Linux, but does it just compile for x86? I don't recall Borland ever making a compiler for other processors (although I really don't know). That in itself could be sort of annoying in that you could use borland's compiler to develop applications, but then be tied completely to x86.
Although I consider myself a fan of anime, I'd have to say I was a bit let down when I realized that it wasn't the 'silent' Metropolis. I'm not sure I'd consider either one well known. Truthfully I don't even know a single person that's seen a silent movie. Which is in a way, sort of sad. You find that silent movies had a charm much their own, despite not having any voices like the 'talkies'. It certainly didn't detract from the power of Metropolis.
That's too easy, you just wiped the hard drive and now they start over. What you REALLY want to do is make a mysterious script which randomly deletes non critical data files at random times. This way the script itself stays on the machine, and continually punishes whomever has the machine
Although some would argue that this is called Windows...
Slashdot Mirror
does the default inital apache install include an index page that says "hacked by chinese?"
We could pass all the laws in the West we want but they would be completely unenforceable in Asia
Sort of like those copyright laws...
Guess I'll see....
"I can pretty much guarantee that I oppose whatever you believe.".
So if I believe you'll oppose my view, does that mean you'll take the same view as me? . . hmmm....
Having recently graduated from college I can say that I really wished my university had done this. For years (yeah I sluff off) the T1 connection was great. Then enter everyone getting a computer along with Napster and (insert file sharing program name here) and the entire network went into the shit can. It got so bad towards the end that they had to allocate extra bandwidth from somewhere (that was costly). Still there were a lot of political aguments such as "well the students are paying for it, blah blah blah". So I guess in the end it's not as simple as just using common sense once politics starts getting involved...
But I wonder about the seti thing... why don't they just enter some dummy code into the client? If the server says "we've hit our cap", then the screen saver acts like it's doing something productive, while it just spins it's wheels and does nothing (like a real screensaver)
the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself(changes polarity) every 300,000 years or so. Rather quick on a planetary time scale, huh?
Just to point this out so that you're aware, the sun's magnetic field inverts every 8 years or so.
Generally just about every table coloring problem can be solved by wraping a main table with an outside table which specifies the background color (not to hard). But then again I've been doing compatability between IE and N4 so long that this is like second nature to me.
And IE only does very generic tables well. Try using some of the interesting border types like dotted or dashed... they look like shit on IE.
With MS you don't get it on your hand or your forhead, you take it in the rear.
Well linux itself is only at version 2.5 so who cares? Of course one has to wonder, if version numbers really do have something to do with software evolution, why doesn't emacs rule the universe?
They seem to be touting portability, but what kind of portability?
.NET - works on the x-box too! Man now THAT's portability!
If I remember correctly they had some guys remove the IE integration during the trial.
merged all into one file, variable names mapped
to numbers, etc...
So they want to play dirty eh? Bring in the Perl programmers!
"Take this example: you have a highly competent NT/2K administrator (they do exist) and a pitiful *nix administrator."
Every time someone brings this up I keep thinking it's sort of redundant. I guess, being a rather pitiful administrator in both respects; I find it easier to at least start locking down a unix box (FreeBSD in my case). With Unix you can tighten a box up instantly just by looking through hosts.allow (and hosts.deny in Linux's case) - it certainly doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on. By contrast windows has a lot more to do with disabling services which (in my opinion) you're never sure what they do or if you need them. And sooner or later you'll end up fishing in the registry...
To me Unix systems are easier to secure because security is a part of the system, and not an afterthought / "oh so we're getting bad press so we'll start an inititive" sort of deal.
it's not unstable, it's packed full of 'features'
Actually the clear optical mouse is probably the only mouse that is cool enough to say "I'll deal with one button". It actually doesn't have any buttons, you push the whole mouse down. Breaks up the boredom when you watch PC users sit down at a Mac and try to figure that one out...
Well that's just it, by default the computer comes with a one button mouse. At the place I used to work they eventually got rid of the puck mouse for the much cooler clear plastic optical one. Eventually someone else took that for their own computer (probably because it looked cool), and we just plugged in a logitech first mouse.
.97). But maybe Mac people are used to it.
Using a Mac with a scrolling wheel and two buttons is really very nice, I just wish apple would start to get with the program and migrate to two buttons (maybe even with a wheel) all together. My personal view is that people tend to use the keyboard, or the mouse, but generally don't use them both together. I consider myself one of the few exeptions as I tend to use shift+click in Mozilla (crippled badly in
"The Apple Pro Keyboard also comes with full-sized keys for Page Up and Down, Home and End, Insert and forward Delete.."
Oh wow!
Nice to see apple finally backed down from having stupid irregular key sizes. I think using the idiotic small arrow keys (along with the small F keys) along with the stupid puck mouse on a G3 scarred me for life . Now for the mouse button thing...
Unfortunatly I think x86 is going to keep going as it is until it eventually hits a brick wall (and who knows when that will be). Then it will probably switch over to multiprocessing, and eventually people will have to finally move to something else.
Of course this is the point where open source has the last laugh, and all you need to do is recompile (in theory anyway). I'm surprised people don't try to market that as a selling point of open source more often...
To me that's where MS is going to have a problem. I don't think any sort of aquisition will help. Security is a mindset. To MS security has always been an after thought after everything else is done. More money isn't the solution. More programmers isn't the solution. The programmers they already have need to "see the light" first. Then they have to do is fix all their stuff, and some of it i imagine couldn't really be made secure unless they rebuilt it from the ground up. Can MS really do this considering their applications tie into just about everything else on the OS? That remains to be seen.
Star Trek computers already
You mean computers with lots of flashing lights and unlabeled buttons that people just seem to know what to push? We already have those in casinos.
Think what he means is that what MS does isn't usually what we need.
MS does whatever it wants to
Linux developers do whatever is best for Linux
It seems like only Apple is actually interested in it's users.
I remember some MS propaganda stating that Linux and other Unix based OS's inherited 30 years of vunerabilities, yet NT was wonderfully secure because it was a much more modern OS. NOW they're making security a priority? Don't tell me M$ has been lying to me!
Sure it might work on Linux, but does it just compile for x86? I don't recall Borland ever making a compiler for other processors (although I really don't know). That in itself could be sort of annoying in that you could use borland's compiler to develop applications, but then be tied completely to x86.
Although I consider myself a fan of anime, I'd have to say I was a bit let down when I realized that it wasn't the 'silent' Metropolis. I'm not sure I'd consider either one well known. Truthfully I don't even know a single person that's seen a silent movie. Which is in a way, sort of sad. You find that silent movies had a charm much their own, despite not having any voices like the 'talkies'. It certainly didn't detract from the power of Metropolis.
That's too easy, you just wiped the hard drive and now they start over. What you REALLY want to do is make a mysterious script which randomly deletes non critical data files at random times. This way the script itself stays on the machine, and continually punishes whomever has the machine
Although some would argue that this is called Windows...