That there is a being called the Devil that is the source of all human urges towards violence and selfishness. That he and his hordes live in a parallel dimension that we cannot see yet can be affected by. That human life itself resides in the context of the constant struggle with this being. That most human beings are not aware of this struggle and, worse yet, will believe the devil's own implanted idea that he does not, in fact, exist. Still worse, that the people who should know how to fight this being (which is one of the purposes of the one religion that is the source of all religions), are instead consumed by him and then are pitted against each other as his pawns.
Mod me down, whatever; I know it's coming, but this is the worst horror film you can imagine, and it's the exact truth.
Wish with your heart to reach God spiritually in your lifetime so that you may serve God - Who only wants for our happiness - and you will succeed in throwing off the yoke of Satan. This is the message of the Age of Hidayat.
So, if you funded, developed and practically gave away something that needed a central control, would you give that control away to a bunch of self-serving beaurocrats? I wouldn't, though I would try to accomodate their needs (not desires) as best as possible. Giving control to the UN would be to forever be incapable of coming to a decision w/out X countries' personal issues assuaged. It's bad enough in our hands, but at least it's working. Remember: nothing gets done by committee, and you can believe that the main reason the UN wants a piece of the action is to get some of that choice domain registration moo-lah.
I say let them use the technology as they will within their borders, but if they want to connect to the "mother net", then they have to talk to the creators.
And, I highly suggest you look up "ad hominem" attack. Yet, my thinking is rather simple: there is no technical reason to increase beaurocracy simply because a group of countries wants a piece of the action.
And, yes, I believe strongly in making things work well for everyone, but giving control to others is *absurd*. My main point is nothing gets done by committee and other countries are free to create their own nets and bridge (or not) into the "mother net". If they create something better, good for them; we'll be forced to play by their rules to attach to their superior tech. But, as I see it, they are using tech developed, tested and spread by American universities. So, no, I don't advocate giving up the power of choice as to its future. But, yes, I believe in sharing tech and connecting human beings.
Do you really think letting international pettiness affect tech decisions would be a good thing? I'd call it asinine.
I'm 36, and I remember the day that AOL and Compuserve were connected to the Internet. I remember netiquette and how it went out the window with all the ALL-CAPS people at AOL. As well, I realize that the letters A-O-L occur in the same order in the word A**hOLe. I've been on the internet since 1988, so I know a bit, probably more than you. Have you ever had to use the ugliness that was gopher?
Anyway, your analogies are terrible because all of technologies you speak of are simply ideas and have no need of central control. You are simply also not noting the fact that we have shared this technology with the world without much intellectual property surtax. So, your analogies are irrelevant because the whole world can use the technology just like we use the technologies you mention; the problem is that if they want to hook up with the "mother net" they have to use the methodology that we invented and subsequently decided upon. The other choice, which is completely viable, is to create a separate net with a specialized bridging system to communicate with "mother". You know, for all the crap on the net, ebay and amazon can be pretty cool, as well as good `ole slashdot.
If the control of DNS was given to a UN committee, it would likely be terrible, because nothing gets done by committee. It's bad enough with the ICANN folks over here; I'd rather not add international quibbles to the equation.
We invented, we govern it. Simple. If they want to create their own version and write the bridges, they can go ahead, but it was our tax dollars (DARPA) that developed it in the first place.
Now, there are more than a few decisions our gov't has made and continues to make that I *strongly* disagree with, but that's for another conversation.
it's the brain using it. A program is only as good as its organization. This is why large programs often fail or are terribly bug-ridden. The complexity of software grows much more than linearly with the number of lines of code. VS.NET is an excellent tool for program editing, but it has its limits as to the number of files (and, hence, data structures) that it can present coherently to the user.
The challenge for programmers is always how much of the design can be visualized in the brain. As much as I like VS.NET, it does not allow me in any way to visually represent my internal organization of my software, therefore my brain is the limiting factor. (AAA, Visio sux and I don't have the cash for Canvas X).
But, hey, what do you think I do on my machine, other than read slashdot:-) We programmers are some of the only engineers who create our own tools, so stop complaining, and get to coding!
Thank you *so* much. Now, all I have to do is code my versions of strlen, memset and all. I really appreciate you replying to my OT post, because google wasn't able to help me on this one.
I've been trying to build a c++ app w/ the original VS Studio.NET, and I'd really like to not link to the standard C libs at all (like libc.lib). I'd really like to just link to the main three: kernel32.lib, user32.lib and gdi32.lib. I've tried/NODEFAULTLIB but that leaves me hanging with a handful of unresolved linker refs to what appears to be auto-generated fct calls (like _RTC_CheckEsp and ___CxxFrameHandler).
Do you know if I can do a clean link to just the "main 3"?
Actually, I find that each user interface (aside from simple dialog boxes) is unique enough that it would really be its own pattern, though as I move towards creating a suite of software tools, my general user interface style will emerge as a rather complex pattern. But before I can do that I have to have many hand-coded instances first so that I can factor out the pattern.
I find patterns most useful in three specific areas: container/list class design, database design and database to class mapping.
I wrote a tool to generate c# classes that wrap the ArrayList class with functions that return a properly-typed elements. It's basically a c++-style template creator (with lots more parameters), yet what it really is is a pattern definition and instantiation process. I define the instance parameters (like includeStackRoutines? and elemHasName) and then I generate a list container. It takes two minutes to generate the class, and this is all because of patterns.
The second use of patterns is in database design, or, rather, the definition of the tables within the db. Some tables have a unique id, some have versioned records, some have another table in a 1:n relation, etc... Even in a large (in my professional experience) db, the types of relations between tables is usually relatively small in number: maybe four or five. Each set of SQL statements that access a section of the db will be just like the SQL statements used for other sections that have the same type of relation, which is a pattern. (BTW, I don't use stored procedures because there are completely non-portable and have lousy error reporting, IME. I do, however, love the idea of having such a clean interface to my db.)
The third situation is in mapping the db structure to a class structure. Once again, similar design patterns for the tables lead to similar patterns of class implementation.
Remember that with patterns what someone else in this discussion said: if the code was exactly the same it would just become a single function. The point of patterns is to factor out the commonality of code and to then apply the pattern as a framework for the creation of similar pieces of code. The key here is that the other areas are *similar*, not the same.
A very simple example that I'm dealing with now is that I'm rolling my own scroll bars within a generic canvas. The code for the vertical click-and-drag bar is the same pattern as the horizontal bar, except that.y becomes.x. All I'm doing is getting the vertical bar correct (which is quite a bit of a pain, actually), then I'll apply the pattern to the hor bar. This is a very simplistic yet completely realistic example.
They don't (as I remember) say to avoid inheritance at all costs, but rather to only use it where needed. And in my many years of programming, polymorphism has rarely been needed. Off the top of my head, the only time I've needed it was when implementing a simple window manager where each different control needed to implement the standard control fcts onKey and onMouse or somesuch.
Personally, I'd say that I prefer to use an enum for the obj's type and then use a switch to handle the different cases within the member functions. I know it's considered bad-practice, but it does keep all the code in one place. Now, if each different type has vastly different data associated with it, then true polymorphism is my choice.
Due to the fact that my software projects get larger every year, I am generally more concerned with source code management than cuteness of structure. It seems to me that keeping everything within one file and class makes it easier to create and debug and *edit*. Whether using ultraedit or vs.net to develop code, my biggest complaint is how few items on my tab strip can be seen at one time. When dealing with the relations between many different levels of a system, going from file to file is essential. Of course, what I really want is to have the file names organized in layers so that their source relation (as I visualize it) would be reflected in the file selection tab.
Of course, that is what my work revolves around. We programmers must always remember: if we have complaints about the tools we use, we should just write our own!
The patterns themselves are not really that groundbreaking, IMO; the genius of the book is the perspective on looking at software as pattern definitions and then their use in different ways and places in software.
The part that every OO developer should ingrain in their brain is to
Prefer composition to inheritance.
Good Lord, people love their inheritance when there are very, very rare situations that call for it. (Composition, btw, is where a data structure is used as a data member of the class).
What it recommends is that instead of this:
class cElement : cParent {... }
use this:
class cElement {
cParent mParent;... }
Inheritance is so friggin abused by OO developers, it is ridiculous.
So, my recommendation is to read the first 50 pages or so, which is their general perspective on programming. After that, it's just details about the patterns they have encountered in their careers.
Thanks, I thought I had missed something there for a moment. I seem to remember from long, long ago, my using nested functions in some environment/lang and that I liked them. Of course, now I shudder at the thought:-)
As a long-time C programmer, I'm curious as to what you mean by "anonymous functions" in C. (This is *not* a troll.) Example code is always welcome. Other than that, thanks for the useful post.
Yeah, well, well, my *two* 23' (not inch, mind you) are gonna put your monitors to shame!:-)
BTW, if you like having some serious whitenoise going while "working", I rather like listening to William Gibson's audio tape of Neuromancer, where he reads the book himself and the Edge from U2 did the music (mostly techno-type stuff). It's cool because it's about 6 hrs long and very technology-oriented. And, I think it is actually freely distributable because they don't make it anymore due to the publisher making a more professional version.
Thanks for the valuable input. It seems that my intuition about increasing my efficiency was correct.
Other than cost, the other apparent drawback to the dual-head nvidia card is that the relatively cheap ones (~$150) only have 64M of RAM, which can barely drive one 1600x1200 monitor at 32bpp. And the 128M versions are around $500. (Of course, in my dreams I have two 1600x1200 lcds side-by-side, as they're only around $600 now, and hopefully falling fast).
I did try to plug a second monitor into an extra pci video card I had, but I was unhappy with how Windows XP handled the whole thing ~ it just seemed kind of kludgy. It seems that Ultramon addresses that need.
Of course, it seems that nvidia, via its ntray manager, is doing the same thing, but, because it's directly tied to the hardware, it *should* be better than any generic multi-head solution.
Well, thanks for the details; now, time to find a budget:-)
I know this is mostly off-topic, but does anyone here run one of the nvidia dual-head cards to increase their desktop space? I'm running 1600x900 and there just isn't enough space, so I've been considering getting one of the Nvidia Quadro4 XGL cards, which are pretty pricey (>= $450), and an extra monitor.
I'm wondering if anyone actually uses this setup and has any comments on the usability of Windows XP for it (someday my FreeBSD will be ready for primetime, but not yet, IMO). Specifically, is there a separate taskbar for each screen and are they completely independent in terms of resolution and settings?
Also, is it just more trouble than it's worth? Maybe just blowing a chunk on a huge (1920x1200) monitor and a better AGP card to drive it would be better from a usability (and simplicity) standpoint.
Further sidebar: I saw one of those Mac 30" monitors - talk about drooool! Trouble is, I'd hate to turn into a Mac fanboy:-) That, and I don't have an extra three grand.
My friend was having some heat problems with his Toshiba notebook, and found a simpler solution: he bought a device that sits under the laptop that has a fan or two in it. It runs off USB and was, I think, like $10. As well, it is only about a half inch thick.
Sorry I don't have any more info, but google is our friend:-)
Yo, troll, I'm talking about copying it and THEN GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. I would never advocate what is called fair-use. Making backup copies of any digitally stored product is part-and-parcel of ownership. Making 100 copies and giving them away is stealing.
This guy is an idiot. If I write some software, it *is* morally wrong for someone to copy it. The argument that "if they wouldn't have paid for it, it's not wrong" is completely screwed. If the don't pay for it, they don't use it - it's that simple. You can't go to a movie theater and just walk into a movie because you wouldn't have paid for it anyway. That is the most nonsensical and ridiculous argument that I've ever heard.
The bottom line here is that the producer of a piece of software or a movie spent their time and/or money to create that work. As such, they get to determine the price as per their own however twisted thinking. If they want to charge $10000 for the notepad replacement, that's their perogative. And if no one wants to pay $10K for it, then I guess his distribution will be zero. That is *his* *choice*.
Now, the producers of food, shelter, clean water, power, services and stuff don't feel obligated to give you it for free if you don't feel like paying the market price, so they will not get my software for free, unless they feel like breaking the law.
I mean, really, who is this asshat that he thinks he can tell people what other people can do with what they create. Sure, he can give his crap away all he wants - I hope he enjoys living in the homeless shelter - but the only right he should be talking about is the right the creator of a piece of work has to determine how his/her creation is distributed.
RMS needs to get his head out of ass and take a good, hard look at the world and how badly the people in it are suffering. If he's feeling so altruistic, charge the fsckers for the work he's producing (assuming he is writing anything noteworthy) and then give the money away to good causes.
What if you took the SHA-1 and MD5 and ran both on your data (for example, a password) and then stored them both side- by-side? Wouldn't that make it nearly impossible to break? Sure, you could, according to this theory, find a new set of data that matches, say, the SHA-1 hash, but that data couldn't *possibly* match the MD5, could it?
Problem is, I'm sure there's a patent on serial variant hashing. If not, here's my prior art:-)
Sure their software is basically crappy, but they have managed to write an OS that works with an unbelievable amount of different kinds of hardware. If in doubt, check the list of supported hardware in Linux or BSD.
That's not the point though, my point is that M$ is at least charging those corporate sob's for their work, and, last I checked, the Bill Gates Foundation was giving away something like a billion a year (I could be wrong, tho). In any event, they have created (along with Paul Allen and other old-time M$-ers) a paradise of biotech research labs. So they have effectively done a little Robin-Hooding of the corporations and then taken that money and at least done *some* good with it. Gates has said that when he has finished running M$, he will do philanthropy full-time. And, while a lot of people speak a bunch of bs, his foundation's track record speaks for itself.
Of course, his business practices are iffy at best, but if he is truly out to help the world, then would you rather a truly evil corporation like Mosanto or Haliburton or one of these prison-corps be owning your computer, or maybe someone like Gates who may simply be using their techniques for a greater good?
For-profit corporations are, by definition, only in it for the money, and as such, are willing to do anything to achieve than end. Witness Enron et al. Look at the environmental devastation, government influencing (running?) and practical enslavement of human beings. This is all because the owners of a corporation have no responsibility to the land or their employees. Witness the shameless job-cutting and overt utilization of overseas labor whose laws would be considered medieval compared to ours.
There is simply no morality in 99% of for-profit corporations. The CEOs get mega-bucks while the layoffs skyrocket. Among the big-boys, it's all just the "good ol' boy network", except they've had the time and money to buy the laws and the judges that enforce them.
A hobbyist or single user who uses free software is ok - he/she can use it to better their education in many ways. I completely advocate free software for personal use, as long as that personal use does not support corporate America.
On a related note, free software can be a great benefit to developing countries or even the poor within America. If corporations had any decency in them, they would recognize that and help fund such initiatives, but they will refuse to do that until we make them. How to do that is a big question, for you can't make anyone assume moral responsibility.
Doesn't anyone else here see the absurdity of providing high-quality software (via your precious time) for free to the corporations that do not give us their technology, food or services for free?
I'll say it now, and I'll say it again, those mutherf**kers are not getting one minute of my time for free. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
That there is a being called the Devil that is the source of all human
urges towards violence and selfishness. That he and his hordes live in
a parallel dimension that we cannot see yet can be affected by. That
human life itself resides in the context of the constant struggle with
this being. That most human beings are not aware of this struggle and,
worse yet, will believe the devil's own implanted idea that he does
not, in fact, exist. Still worse, that the people who should know how
to fight this being (which is one of the purposes of the one religion
that is the source of all religions), are instead consumed by him and
then are pitted against each other as his pawns.
Mod me down, whatever; I know it's coming, but this is the worst horror
film you can imagine, and it's the exact truth.
Wish with your heart to reach God spiritually in your lifetime so that
you may serve God - Who only wants for our happiness - and you will
succeed in throwing off the yoke of Satan. This is the message of the
Age of Hidayat.
Peace be with you all. May all love all.
So, if you funded, developed and practically gave away something
that needed a central control, would you give that control away to
a bunch of self-serving beaurocrats? I wouldn't, though I would try
to accomodate their needs (not desires) as best as possible. Giving
control to the UN would be to forever be incapable of coming to
a decision w/out X countries' personal issues assuaged. It's bad
enough in our hands, but at least it's working. Remember: nothing gets
done by committee, and you can believe that the main reason the
UN wants a piece of the action is to get some of that choice
domain registration moo-lah.
I say let them use the technology as they will within their
borders, but if they want to connect to the "mother net", then
they have to talk to the creators.
And, I highly suggest you look up "ad hominem" attack. Yet,
my thinking is rather simple: there is no technical reason to
increase beaurocracy simply because a group of countries wants a
piece of the action.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
{first, please read this}
Now, we refers to American computer scientists.
And, yes, I believe strongly in making things work well for
everyone, but giving control to others is *absurd*. My
main point is nothing gets done by committee and other
countries are free to create their own nets and bridge
(or not) into the "mother net". If they create something
better, good for them; we'll be forced to play by their
rules to attach to their superior tech. But, as I see it,
they are using tech developed, tested and spread by
American universities. So, no, I don't advocate giving
up the power of choice as to its future. But, yes, I
believe in sharing tech and connecting human beings.
Do you really think letting international pettiness
affect tech decisions would be a good thing? I'd call
it asinine.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
{Troll baited, commence reeling...}
I'm 36, and I remember the day that AOL and Compuserve
were connected to the Internet. I remember netiquette
and how it went out the window with all the ALL-CAPS
people at AOL. As well, I realize that the letters
A-O-L occur in the same order in the word A**hOLe.
I've been on the internet since 1988, so I know a bit,
probably more than you. Have you ever had to use the
ugliness that was gopher?
Anyway, your analogies are terrible because all of
technologies you speak of are simply ideas and have
no need of central control. You are simply also not
noting the fact that we have shared this technology
with the world without much intellectual property
surtax. So, your analogies are irrelevant because
the whole world can use the technology just like we
use the technologies you mention; the problem is that
if they want to hook up with the "mother net" they
have to use the methodology that we invented and
subsequently decided upon. The other choice, which
is completely viable, is to create a separate net
with a specialized bridging system to communicate
with "mother". You know, for all the crap on the
net, ebay and amazon can be pretty cool, as well
as good `ole slashdot.
If the control of DNS was given to a UN committee,
it would likely be terrible, because nothing gets
done by committee. It's bad enough with the ICANN
folks over here; I'd rather not add international
quibbles to the equation.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
We invented, we govern it. Simple. If they want to
create their own version and write the bridges, they
can go ahead, but it was our tax dollars (DARPA) that
developed it in the first place.
Now, there are more than a few decisions our gov't
has made and continues to make that I *strongly*
disagree with, but that's for another conversation.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
it's the brain using it. A program is only as good as its
:-) We programmers are some of the only
organization. This is why large programs often fail or are
terribly bug-ridden. The complexity of software grows much
more than linearly with the number of lines of code. VS.NET
is an excellent tool for program editing, but it has its
limits as to the number of files (and, hence, data structures)
that it can present coherently to the user.
The challenge for programmers is always how much of the
design can be visualized in the brain. As much as I like
VS.NET, it does not allow me in any way to visually represent
my internal organization of my software, therefore my brain
is the limiting factor. (AAA, Visio sux and I don't have
the cash for Canvas X).
But, hey, what do you think I do on my machine, other than
read slashdot
engineers who create our own tools, so stop complaining, and
get to coding!
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
WasCmdrTaco
:-)
I don't think 'Was' is an honorific
Of course, I don't play WoW, so it may be
impossible to change your name now.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Thank you *so* much. Now, all I have to do is code my versions of strlen, memset and all. I really appreciate you replying to my OT post, because google wasn't able to help me on this one.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
I've been trying to build a c++ app w/ the original VS Studio .NET, and I'd really like to not link to the standard C libs at all (like libc.lib). I'd really like to just link to the main three: kernel32.lib, user32.lib and gdi32.lib. I've tried /NODEFAULTLIB but that leaves me hanging with a handful of unresolved linker refs to what appears to be auto-generated fct calls (like _RTC_CheckEsp and ___CxxFrameHandler).
Do you know if I can do a clean link to just the "main 3"?
I would really appreciate the help.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Actually, I find that each user interface (aside from simple dialog boxes) is unique enough that it would really be its own pattern, though as I move towards creating a suite of software tools, my general user interface style will emerge as a rather complex pattern. But before I can do that I have to have many hand-coded instances first so that I can factor out the pattern.
.y becomes .x. All I'm doing is getting the vertical bar correct (which is quite a bit of a pain, actually), then I'll apply the pattern to the hor bar. This is a very simplistic yet completely realistic example.
I find patterns most useful in three specific areas: container/list class design, database design and database to class mapping.
I wrote a tool to generate c# classes that wrap the ArrayList class with functions that return a properly-typed elements. It's basically a c++-style template creator (with lots more parameters), yet what it really is is a pattern definition and instantiation process. I define the instance parameters (like includeStackRoutines? and elemHasName) and then I generate a list container. It takes two minutes to generate the class, and this is all because of patterns.
The second use of patterns is in database design, or, rather, the definition of the tables within the db. Some tables have a unique id, some have versioned records, some have another table in a 1:n relation, etc... Even in a large (in my professional experience) db, the types of relations between tables is usually relatively small in number: maybe four or five. Each set of SQL statements that access a section of the db will be just like the SQL statements used for other sections that have the same type of relation, which is a pattern. (BTW, I don't use stored procedures because there are completely non-portable and have lousy error reporting, IME. I do, however, love the idea of having such a clean interface to my db.)
The third situation is in mapping the db structure to a class structure. Once again, similar design patterns for the tables lead to similar patterns of class implementation.
Remember that with patterns what someone else in this discussion said: if the code was exactly the same it would just become a single function. The point of patterns is to factor out the commonality of code and to then apply the pattern as a framework for the creation of similar pieces of code. The key here is that the other areas are
*similar*, not the same.
A very simple example that I'm dealing with now is that I'm rolling my own scroll bars within a generic canvas. The code for the vertical click-and-drag bar is the same pattern as the horizontal bar, except that
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
They don't (as I remember) say to avoid
inheritance at all costs, but rather to
only use it where needed. And in my
many years of programming, polymorphism
has rarely been needed. Off the top of
my head, the only time I've needed it
was when implementing a simple window
manager where each different control
needed to implement the standard control
fcts onKey and onMouse or somesuch.
Personally, I'd say that I prefer to
use an enum for the obj's type and then
use a switch to handle the different
cases within the member functions. I
know it's considered bad-practice, but
it does keep all the code in one place.
Now, if each different type has vastly
different data associated with it, then
true polymorphism is my choice.
Due to the fact that my software projects
get larger every year, I am generally more
concerned with source code management
than cuteness of structure. It seems to
me that keeping everything within one
file and class makes it easier to create
and debug and *edit*. Whether using
ultraedit or vs.net to develop code, my
biggest complaint is how few items on my
tab strip can be seen at one time. When
dealing with the relations between many
different levels of a system, going from
file to file is essential. Of course,
what I really want is to have the file
names organized in layers so that their
source relation (as I visualize it) would
be reflected in the file selection tab.
Of course, that is what my work revolves
around. We programmers must always remember:
if we have complaints about the tools we
use, we should just write our own!
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
The patterns themselves are not really that
... }
...
groundbreaking, IMO; the genius of the book
is the perspective on looking at software
as pattern definitions and then their use
in different ways and places in software.
The part that every OO developer should
ingrain in their brain is to
Prefer composition to inheritance.
Good Lord, people love their inheritance
when there are very, very rare situations
that call for it. (Composition, btw, is
where a data structure is used as a data
member of the class).
What it recommends is that instead of this:
class cElement : cParent {
use this:
class cElement {
cParent mParent;
}
Inheritance is so friggin abused by OO
developers, it is ridiculous.
So, my recommendation is to read the first
50 pages or so, which is their general
perspective on programming. After that,
it's just details about the patterns they
have encountered in their careers.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Thanks, I thought I had missed something :-)
there for a moment. I seem to remember
from long, long ago, my using nested
functions in some environment/lang and that
I liked them. Of course, now I shudder
at the thought
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
As a long-time C programmer, I'm curious as
to what you mean by "anonymous functions" in
C. (This is *not* a troll.) Example code is
always welcome. Other than that, thanks for
the useful post.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
So what's worse, your gloating or my jealousy :-)
:-)
Yeah, well, well, my *two* 23' (not inch, mind
you) are gonna put your monitors to shame!
BTW, if you like having some serious whitenoise
going while "working", I rather like listening
to William Gibson's audio tape of Neuromancer,
where he reads the book himself and the Edge
from U2 did the music (mostly techno-type
stuff). It's cool because it's about 6 hrs
long and very technology-oriented. And, I
think it is actually freely distributable
because they don't make it anymore due to the
publisher making a more professional version.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Oops, I did the math with bytes instead of bits.
Thanks.
Thanks for the valuable input. It seems that
:-)
my intuition about increasing my efficiency
was correct.
Other than cost, the other apparent drawback
to the dual-head nvidia card is that the
relatively cheap ones (~$150) only have 64M
of RAM, which can barely drive one 1600x1200
monitor at 32bpp. And the 128M versions are
around $500. (Of course, in my dreams I
have two 1600x1200 lcds side-by-side, as
they're only around $600 now, and hopefully
falling fast).
I did try to plug a second monitor into an
extra pci video card I had, but I was
unhappy with how Windows XP handled the
whole thing ~ it just seemed kind of kludgy.
It seems that Ultramon addresses that need.
Of course, it seems that nvidia, via its
ntray manager, is doing the same thing, but,
because it's directly tied to the hardware,
it *should* be better than any generic
multi-head solution.
Well, thanks for the details; now, time to
find a budget
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
I know this is mostly off-topic, but does anyone
:-)
here run one of the nvidia dual-head cards to
increase their desktop space? I'm running
1600x900 and there just isn't enough space,
so I've been considering getting one of the
Nvidia Quadro4 XGL cards, which are pretty
pricey (>= $450), and an extra monitor.
I'm wondering if anyone actually uses this
setup and has any comments on the usability
of Windows XP for it (someday my FreeBSD
will be ready for primetime, but not yet,
IMO). Specifically, is there a separate
taskbar for each screen and are they
completely independent in terms of resolution
and settings?
Also, is it just more trouble than it's
worth? Maybe just blowing a chunk on a
huge (1920x1200) monitor and a better
AGP card to drive it would be better from
a usability (and simplicity) standpoint.
Further sidebar: I saw one of those Mac
30" monitors - talk about drooool! Trouble
is, I'd hate to turn into a Mac fanboy
That, and I don't have an extra three grand.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
My friend was having some heat problems with
:-)
his Toshiba notebook, and found a simpler
solution: he bought a device that sits under
the laptop that has a fan or two in it. It
runs off USB and was, I think, like $10. As
well, it is only about a half inch thick.
Sorry I don't have any more info, but google
is our friend
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Yo, troll, I'm talking about copying it and THEN
GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. I would never
advocate what is called fair-use. Making backup
copies of any digitally stored product is
part-and-parcel of ownership. Making 100 copies
and giving them away is stealing.
Nice troll.
This guy is an idiot. If I write some software,
it *is* morally wrong for someone to copy it.
The argument that "if they wouldn't have paid
for it, it's not wrong" is completely screwed.
If the don't pay for it, they don't use it -
it's that simple. You can't go to a movie
theater and just walk into a movie because you
wouldn't have paid for it anyway. That is the
most nonsensical and ridiculous argument that
I've ever heard.
The bottom line here is that the producer of
a piece of software or a movie spent their
time and/or money to create that work. As
such, they get to determine the price as per
their own however twisted thinking. If they
want to charge $10000 for the notepad
replacement, that's their perogative. And
if no one wants to pay $10K for it, then I
guess his distribution will be zero. That
is *his* *choice*.
Now, the producers of food, shelter, clean
water, power, services and stuff don't feel
obligated to give you it for free if you
don't feel like paying the market price,
so they will not get my software for free,
unless they feel like breaking the law.
I mean, really, who is this asshat that he
thinks he can tell people what other people
can do with what they create. Sure, he can
give his crap away all he wants - I hope he
enjoys living in the homeless shelter - but
the only right he should be talking about is
the right the creator of a piece of work has
to determine how his/her creation is distributed.
RMS needs to get his head out of ass and
take a good, hard look at the world and how
badly the people in it are suffering. If he's
feeling so altruistic, charge the fsckers for
the work he's producing (assuming he is
writing anything noteworthy) and then give
the money away to good causes.
Damn, that article pissed me off.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
What if you took the SHA-1 and MD5 and
:-)
ran both on your data (for example, a
password) and then stored them both side-
by-side? Wouldn't that make it nearly
impossible to break? Sure, you could,
according to this theory, find a new
set of data that matches, say, the SHA-1
hash, but that data couldn't *possibly*
match the MD5, could it?
Problem is, I'm sure there's a patent
on serial variant hashing. If not,
here's my prior art
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Sure their software is basically crappy, but
they have managed to write an OS that works
with an unbelievable amount of different kinds
of hardware. If in doubt, check the list of
supported hardware in Linux or BSD.
That's not the point though, my point is that
M$ is at least charging those corporate sob's
for their work, and, last I checked, the
Bill Gates Foundation was giving away something
like a billion a year (I could be wrong, tho).
In any event, they have created (along with
Paul Allen and other old-time M$-ers) a paradise
of biotech research labs. So they have
effectively done a little Robin-Hooding of the
corporations and then taken that money and at
least done *some* good with it. Gates has
said that when he has finished running M$, he
will do philanthropy full-time. And, while a
lot of people speak a bunch of bs, his
foundation's track record speaks for itself.
Of course, his business practices are iffy at
best, but if he is truly out to help the world,
then would you rather a truly evil corporation
like Mosanto or Haliburton or one of these
prison-corps be owning your computer, or maybe
someone like Gates who may simply be using
their techniques for a greater good?
It is a possibility.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
For-profit corporations are, by definition,
only in it for the money, and as such, are
willing to do anything to achieve than end.
Witness Enron et al. Look at the environmental
devastation, government influencing (running?)
and practical enslavement of human beings. This
is all because the owners of a corporation have
no responsibility to the land or their employees.
Witness the shameless job-cutting and overt
utilization of overseas labor whose laws would be
considered medieval compared to ours.
There is simply no morality in 99% of for-profit
corporations. The CEOs get mega-bucks while
the layoffs skyrocket. Among the big-boys, it's
all just the "good ol' boy network", except
they've had the time and money to buy the laws
and the judges that enforce them.
A hobbyist or single user who uses free software
is ok - he/she can use it to better their
education in many ways. I completely advocate
free software for personal use, as long as that
personal use does not support corporate America.
On a related note, free software can be a great
benefit to developing countries or even the poor
within America. If corporations had any decency
in them, they would recognize that and help
fund such initiatives, but they will refuse to
do that until we make them. How to do that is
a big question, for you can't make anyone assume
moral responsibility.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Doesn't anyone else here see the absurdity
of providing high-quality software (via your
precious time) for free to the corporations
that do not give us their technology, food
or services for free?
I'll say it now, and I'll say it again,
those mutherf**kers are not getting one
minute of my time for free. Period.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac