This whole thing about a "fork" is kind of bogus. It's hardly a "fork" in traditional sense, like WINE or BSD.
Even the letter linked to is quite old.
Here's a simplified version of what happened: there was one Samba. One group of people wanted to rearchitect it to make significant improvements. Another group of people pointed out that a lot of people depend upon Samba as a production server, and would be without major bugfixes or improvements while Samba's guts were ripped out, especially since it might be years until Samba functionality reached former levels.
Basically, the two groups couldn't agree, and a fork occured. The old Samba was maintained to keep people who were currently using Samba happy, and the new Samba was placed on the operating table and dubbed Samba: The Next Generation.
A while later, both groups decided that Samba:TNG would make a good next major version for Samba. The old Samba will become 2.x, and Samba:TNG will become 3.x. So basically, all we have here is a Linux 1/Linux 2 or GNOME 1/GNOME 2 situation. The two forked for a version change.
Most of the changes in TNG were based around domain controller stuff. Since I only use Samba as a client, it doesn't really affect me much...
Imagine that you're trying to teach a business student to work in the business world.
Okay, you teach terminology. You teach a couple of business and management models. You cover some basic topics in marketing, and stuff. And then you're *done*. The only thing left is experience, which isn't so easy to teach. And yet you have to give the student four years of education. So what do you do? Fall back on some cute, in-a-nutshell phrases that summarize fixes to a few of the problems that you personally ran into.
I've always been very, very unimpressed with the education business students recieve. That does *not* mean that I necessarily think that business as a job is trivial, just that it's very difficult to teach students "business". It doesn't neatly break down into rules.
Err...this is a pretty easy one
on
Blocking Kazaa 2.0?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just use a transparent HTTP proxy. Only normal, unencrypted connections on port 80 will be handled. Others just stop dead.
Of course, this is yet another stopgap solution, just like blocking the original port. When Kazaa 3 or whatever moves to 443, you're going to be pretty much SOL. That's just the way the Internet works. Information tends to move around.
That's kind of too bad -- I'd love nothing more than to see Kazaa, the last of the major closed P2P protocols, go belly-up. I'm definitely rooting for the RIAA/MPAA on this one. Once it dies, people will be using open protocols.:-)
My attitude is pretty much that you're better off throttling the bajeezus out of their traffic -- they exceed a quota, you clamp down on their rate. Trying to *block* something simply makes people try more solutions until they get around it, whereas data trickling in or out will usually keep them happy enough not to cause too many problems. The human side of things kind of has to be considered here.
I'd also like to say that I really loathe transparent proxies (nothing wrong with opaque proxies -- I run one myself -- but *forcing* the user to do something just causes problems). I also hate people that firewall *anything* outgoing, and most things incoming. Causes lots of pain to the user, and not a lot of long term benefit. Eventually, everything except 80 outbound and 443 outbound are going to be firewalled. Then everything will end up using SOAP or tunneling over 443 to communicate just to get by. As a result, in a few years the Internet will be slower and less reliable, and security and ability to "control" what users do will be less there.
My interests and work tend to lie in security, and I *still* think that most security-oriented admins have their heads up their asses. What's needed is a *good* fix, not a slapdash thing like firewalling off a port or two. Kazaa uses too much bandwidth? Provide an alternative that costs you less (a la the school that wanted to reduce P2P bandwidth -- they made a P2P filesharing app that only talked to other machines on the school network). Trying to perfectly control human behavior hasn't been practical since the dawn of time, and the introduction of the computer isn't going to make it suddenly feasible.
Personally I don't think it is the job of individuals to find a way to communicate post-tragedy
I really loathe all the people who live in NYC, do *not* work in the WTC, and then called home or got called to "make sure they were okay". Which makes things hell for the people who *do* need the lines to coordinate emergency work or who need emergency medical assistance.
Perhaps people are just less aware of it outside of CA -- after a major earthquake, *everyone* knows that the stupidest, most irresponsible thing you can do is to call all your relatives and tell 'em that you're all right. People *need* to call in for medical assistance, to report major problems (a bridge starting to collapse, etc). Chatting with your family when you aren't hurt is a big no-no.
USians sometimes frusterate me. No experience with disaster, most of us, except for maybe "stress" or "emotional damage", and so a total fucking inability to act responsibly in a real emergency.
The relevance of unions today has been questioned by big business, citing numerous government regulations that work to protect employees from hazards in the workplace, discrimination, work hours, etc. What these government regulations don't protect you from is being treated like shit by companies that cut hours, push for unpaid overtime, cut perks, cut staffing, cut benefits - All while operating profitably.
The plight of the poor, put-upon IT worker making five times minimum wage with benefits, with his fat ass in a safe office chair instead of a coal mine? Nope, doesn't resonate.
I've always been anti-union. But that was before the dot-com bubble burst. I was working at an ISP a few months ago. I had a guy with a Masters' degree and two certifications walk in our door looking for a job.
And how the *fuck* is unionizing going to keep your dot-com parent company going to keep from going under? The problem today is not companies making shitloads of profit and exploiting their workers more (a la coal magnates). The problem is that the *companies* are doing badly. You can't just squeeze the company and get more money from it, and make everything fine. The people at dot-coms, American Airlines, Enron, WorldCom, AOL, etc, are just going to have a rough time of it. There isn't a nice way to say it.
In Europe, almost all jobs are protected by government regulations or unions. You -can- fire someone for poor job performance, but it requires a review process.
Nothing like red tape to solve problems! Look and see how many people in Sweden would like to live in the US versus how many people in the US would like to live in Sweden.
Not the whim of an asshole manager playing office politics.
Politics will *never* leave the workplace. Even by adding red tape.
Collective bargaining gives employees power.
Unions also tend (unless you have a single-company union, formed of the employees at a single company) to be designed purely to put money in the pocket of *another* large, self-interested organization with a deep love for taking money from those who need it -- AFL/CIO.
Because hospitals are mistreating nurses. Underpaid, overworked, and being replaced by cheaper H1-B labor.
You want to *unionize* to keep companies from replacing workers with foreign workers and moving jobs overseas?
If the owners of a company really believe that it's going to do well, there's very little reason to go public. You get a one-time influx of money. Maybe you expand your company a bit there, and then it's gone and you're stuck with drawbacks for the rest of its life.
IPOing a company simply says "I have no faith in this company."
So, something like GNU gcj, which requires recompilation for each target platform, may well be the better choice than Sun's bloated JRE: while you don't get universal byte code deployment, which you don't need, gcj binaries start up much faster and consume less resources, which may be more important on your server.
Not sure about memory usage, but gcj, despite being a native-code compiler, produces programs that run significantly slower than Java-bytecode programs running in IBM's JVM.
That would make some sense if the computer actually calculated individual fields (which is the term you're looking for).
Thank you -- what I said does make sense. I also meant "frames", not "fields". Fields is a term specific to the video format, which really doesn't come into the rendering side of things, which is what I'm talking about.
The CPU calculates each full frame internally as one progressive pass - this applies to any console BTW - and the video hardware translates this to NTSC.
Some games render at 30 fps and vertically blur the image, and others render at 60 fps (and while I cannot swear to it, I doubt that the GPU goes to the trouble of rendering odd lines of even lines are the only thing being displayed). There definitely is *not* a 30 fps hardware restriction on any consoles that I know of.
The television is responsible for drawing the frame, which it does as two interlaced fields. CPU cycles don't enter into it.
However, performing the general game computation (movement, AI, physics, etc) *do* require more CPU time. Which, surprise, is why two half resolution frames don't compare to one full resolution frame.
Thanks for proving my point though.
Or not.
Q: Is there any specific technological feat that you're most proud of? Steve: Pretty much the engine overall, because we were able to get a lot of performance out of the GameCube, and it allowed us to have these really gorgeous environments that were very rich in detail. That's mainly thanks to the engineering support we received. Michael: Also, to run at 60 frames per second and achieve all of that is pretty amazing. Miyamoto: The ability to show off all those particle effects at once and still have it run at 60 frames per second. That was impressive.
Replace every three generations, or when things are three times as fast as your current device.
I've gotta disagree. That's much too frequent. Besides costing you more, it eliminates the "good feeling" you get from having something much, much better than you just did.
I can assure you that the andrenaline caused by moving from a 8Mhz Mac Plus with a 68000, single-tasking OS, 8.5 inch B/W (NOT grayscale) to a 60Mhz Power Mac with a PPC 601, multitasking OS, and 14 inch color screen was quite intense.:-)
I tend to take the following approach (though I don't play the latest and greatest games).
Storage: Upgrade every 4x to 6x. I went 80MB->250MB->1GB->6GB->30GB.
CPU: I think upgrading less than 10x takes all the joy out of the upgrade.:-)
Sound card: Why would anyone upgrade these? Old sound cards are great.
And you've got four or more controllers plugged in to that PC?
Sure, USB. Try and plug 127 controllers into your console.:-) More realistically, I have three, though I've only ever used two at once.
It's in your living room where you can all sit in comfort.
Err...no, PCs have better online support. No need to make friends walk over to your house to play.
It's plugged in to a screen bigger that 19".
Nope. Why would I want it to be? The resolution is much more important than the size. Heck, the other day I was playing a Dreamcast game from a projector to get a 20' tall image. Looked awful.
You have a bunch of friends who come over to play.
They don't *need* to, because they can play remotely.
Which, granted, is about fifteen feet away in a dorm...
The machine doesn't make more noise than the F1 car sounds coming from the stereo as you play.
My computer is much more quiet than the PS/2 my roommate has. That has a ridiculously loud drive, and you can hear the thing read. Last time I played on an Xbox, same thing was true. Dunno about the GC.
You don't keyboard or mouse to do anything.
Because you *cannot* use the keyboard or mouse. Which, for many types of games is a *huge* drawback. The mouse is *much* better than a controller for strategy games (real time or turn based). It's also much better for FPSes. The keyboard is essential for games that use more than the puny eight buttons or so on the gamepad (a proper Quake setup, a roguelike), anywhere you want to type text...
Hell, most of these clowns keep quoting stuff like 'games that run at 60 frames per second' without knowing that their fucking TV only shows them 30.
Hell, most of the clowns criticizing these clowns keep quoting stuff like "TV only shows them 30" without knowing that it runs at 60.
What the hell metric are you looking at? You can't say that two interlaced frames use anywhere near the same amount of cycles that a single frame uses.
Think of it as running at 60 fps, half vertical resolution. *That* would be accurate.
(my friend tried StarCraft on WineX on a 500 mhz with 256 ram, and it ran like ass... on windows, perfectly fine).
He wasn't using DGA. He was just using SHM. If you use SHM, WINE will run very slowly. Starcraft under WINE using DGA runs slightly faster than it did for me under NT 4 (and doesn't have the damn "looping sound" DirectSound bug under Linux).
You lads also have Ambrosia Software, Spiderweb Software (which now usually does Windows versions as well). I have wonderful memories of both those companies from Mac OS Classic days.
Plus, a lot of the ports are better than the Windows original. Few reach the level of the Warcraft II port (where the Mac version had 3d sound and TCP/IP networking added by the porting company), but frequently people buying the Mac version get expansions for free and get all the bugfixes that Windows gamers have to find themselves and wait for the company to fix.
The Mac can run Fallout, Close Combat, and the Angband clones. That's enough to keep me happy on just about any system. I wish Linux could do that (to my great disappointment, WINE does not yet handle Close Combat, but with any luck, it will soon -- I've noticed that both the winex and wine trees have in the last few months had clipping code added to DirectX...)
Dynamic DNS. Have it change your hostname to something nonsensical when your computer is not connected after a timeout.
Still a hack -- and not as good from a user POV.
No modern FTP server has these flaws. Or if you're using one that does, then switch to another one (any of them)... I reccommend ProFTPd.
If you don't have list of upload, you also lose the ability to do resumes of failed transfers. (licq, the only IM client I use, *does* have the ability to do this, so I would assume that AIM does as well). Many UNIX FTP servers (possibly not ProFTPd) use the UNIX permission system to handle security, which does not differentiate between creation and write access for files.
Not in this case. In this case, the guy is trying to access files on his unattended computer at home. Basically, exactly what FTP (or better yet, SSH) is for.
Hmm. The part I was reading was about people collaborating.
If you haven't filled out your draft card (which makes you eligible for being drafted), and you're 18 or over, and a male citizen of the United States, you're in violation of federal law.
And perhaps Israel does this, but I'm talking about the United States, not Israel.
That's a pretty thoughtless comment, given the seriousness of the Geneva convention and our nearness to killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Oh, get off your high horse. I don't agree with the idea of going to war with Iraq either, but I'll be damned if people are going to dictate my sense of humor in such a situation.
Or make sure your MP3s are encoded at 320 and not 128.
I still can't figure out why *anyone* uses CBR MP3s at all. CBR produces significantly lower quality for a given amount of data (in my listening tests, CBR requires about 50% more data than VBR to get equivalently good-sounding audio). There is *one* reason that CBR was developed, and that's for streaming audio over the network. If you aren't running a streaming server, for the love of God, use VBR encoding.
Slashdot Mirror
And how is unionization going to solve the problem?
This whole thing about a "fork" is kind of bogus. It's hardly a "fork" in traditional sense, like WINE or BSD.
Even the letter linked to is quite old.
Here's a simplified version of what happened: there was one Samba. One group of people wanted to rearchitect it to make significant improvements. Another group of people pointed out that a lot of people depend upon Samba as a production server, and would be without major bugfixes or improvements while Samba's guts were ripped out, especially since it might be years until Samba functionality reached former levels.
Basically, the two groups couldn't agree, and a fork occured. The old Samba was maintained to keep people who were currently using Samba happy, and the new Samba was placed on the operating table and dubbed Samba: The Next Generation.
A while later, both groups decided that Samba:TNG would make a good next major version for Samba. The old Samba will become 2.x, and Samba:TNG will become 3.x. So basically, all we have here is a Linux 1/Linux 2 or GNOME 1/GNOME 2 situation. The two forked for a version change.
Most of the changes in TNG were based around domain controller stuff. Since I only use Samba as a client, it doesn't really affect me much...
if he sits in his office and tells me that he's going to "surgify that malignancicity" I'm looking for new doc.
You obviously don't live in West Virginia.
Imagine that you're trying to teach a business student to work in the business world.
Okay, you teach terminology. You teach a couple of business and management models. You cover some basic topics in marketing, and stuff. And then you're *done*. The only thing left is experience, which isn't so easy to teach. And yet you have to give the student four years of education. So what do you do? Fall back on some cute, in-a-nutshell phrases that summarize fixes to a few of the problems that you personally ran into.
I've always been very, very unimpressed with the education business students recieve. That does *not* mean that I necessarily think that business as a job is trivial, just that it's very difficult to teach students "business". It doesn't neatly break down into rules.
Just use a transparent HTTP proxy. Only normal, unencrypted connections on port 80 will be handled. Others just stop dead.
:-)
Of course, this is yet another stopgap solution, just like blocking the original port. When Kazaa 3 or whatever moves to 443, you're going to be pretty much SOL. That's just the way the Internet works. Information tends to move around.
That's kind of too bad -- I'd love nothing more than to see Kazaa, the last of the major closed P2P protocols, go belly-up. I'm definitely rooting for the RIAA/MPAA on this one. Once it dies, people will be using open protocols.
My attitude is pretty much that you're better off throttling the bajeezus out of their traffic -- they exceed a quota, you clamp down on their rate. Trying to *block* something simply makes people try more solutions until they get around it, whereas data trickling in or out will usually keep them happy enough not to cause too many problems. The human side of things kind of has to be considered here.
I'd also like to say that I really loathe transparent proxies (nothing wrong with opaque proxies -- I run one myself -- but *forcing* the user to do something just causes problems). I also hate people that firewall *anything* outgoing, and most things incoming. Causes lots of pain to the user, and not a lot of long term benefit. Eventually, everything except 80 outbound and 443 outbound are going to be firewalled. Then everything will end up using SOAP or tunneling over 443 to communicate just to get by. As a result, in a few years the Internet will be slower and less reliable, and security and ability to "control" what users do will be less there.
My interests and work tend to lie in security, and I *still* think that most security-oriented admins have their heads up their asses. What's needed is a *good* fix, not a slapdash thing like firewalling off a port or two. Kazaa uses too much bandwidth? Provide an alternative that costs you less (a la the school that wanted to reduce P2P bandwidth -- they made a P2P filesharing app that only talked to other machines on the school network). Trying to perfectly control human behavior hasn't been practical since the dawn of time, and the introduction of the computer isn't going to make it suddenly feasible.
Personally I don't think it is the job of individuals to find a way to communicate post-tragedy
I really loathe all the people who live in NYC, do *not* work in the WTC, and then called home or got called to "make sure they were okay". Which makes things hell for the people who *do* need the lines to coordinate emergency work or who need emergency medical assistance.
Perhaps people are just less aware of it outside of CA -- after a major earthquake, *everyone* knows that the stupidest, most irresponsible thing you can do is to call all your relatives and tell 'em that you're all right. People *need* to call in for medical assistance, to report major problems (a bridge starting to collapse, etc). Chatting with your family when you aren't hurt is a big no-no.
USians sometimes frusterate me. No experience with disaster, most of us, except for maybe "stress" or "emotional damage", and so a total fucking inability to act responsibly in a real emergency.
The relevance of unions today has been questioned by big business, citing numerous government regulations that work to protect employees from hazards in the workplace, discrimination, work hours, etc. What these government regulations don't protect you from is being treated like shit by companies that cut hours, push for unpaid overtime, cut perks, cut staffing, cut benefits - All while operating profitably.
The plight of the poor, put-upon IT worker making five times minimum wage with benefits, with his fat ass in a safe office chair instead of a coal mine? Nope, doesn't resonate.
I've always been anti-union. But that was before the dot-com bubble burst. I was working at an ISP a few months ago. I had a guy with a Masters' degree and two certifications walk in our door looking for a job.
And how the *fuck* is unionizing going to keep your dot-com parent company going to keep from going under? The problem today is not companies making shitloads of profit and exploiting their workers more (a la coal magnates). The problem is that the *companies* are doing badly. You can't just squeeze the company and get more money from it, and make everything fine. The people at dot-coms, American Airlines, Enron, WorldCom, AOL, etc, are just going to have a rough time of it. There isn't a nice way to say it.
In Europe, almost all jobs are protected by government regulations or unions. You -can- fire someone for poor job performance, but it requires a review process.
Nothing like red tape to solve problems! Look and see how many people in Sweden would like to live in the US versus how many people in the US would like to live in Sweden.
Not the whim of an asshole manager playing office politics.
Politics will *never* leave the workplace. Even by adding red tape.
Collective bargaining gives employees power.
Unions also tend (unless you have a single-company union, formed of the employees at a single company) to be designed purely to put money in the pocket of *another* large, self-interested organization with a deep love for taking money from those who need it -- AFL/CIO.
Because hospitals are mistreating nurses. Underpaid, overworked, and being replaced by cheaper H1-B labor.
You want to *unionize* to keep companies from replacing workers with foreign workers and moving jobs overseas?
If the owners of a company really believe that it's going to do well, there's very little reason to go public. You get a one-time influx of money. Maybe you expand your company a bit there, and then it's gone and you're stuck with drawbacks for the rest of its life.
IPOing a company simply says "I have no faith in this company."
So, something like GNU gcj, which requires recompilation for each target platform, may well be the better choice than Sun's bloated JRE: while you don't get universal byte code deployment, which you don't need, gcj binaries start up much faster and consume less resources, which may be more important on your server.
Not sure about memory usage, but gcj, despite being a native-code compiler, produces programs that run significantly slower than Java-bytecode programs running in IBM's JVM.
Why the hell don't we in the US have a privacy commissioner? That's not fair!
That would make some sense if the computer actually calculated individual fields (which is the term you're looking for).
Thank you -- what I said does make sense. I also meant "frames", not "fields". Fields is a term specific to the video format, which really doesn't come into the rendering side of things, which is what I'm talking about.
The CPU calculates each full frame internally as one progressive pass - this applies to any console BTW - and the video hardware translates this to NTSC.
Some games render at 30 fps and vertically blur the image, and others render at 60 fps (and while I cannot swear to it, I doubt that the GPU goes to the trouble of rendering odd lines of even lines are the only thing being displayed). There definitely is *not* a 30 fps hardware restriction on any consoles that I know of.
The television is responsible for drawing the frame, which it does as two interlaced fields. CPU cycles don't enter into it.
However, performing the general game computation (movement, AI, physics, etc) *do* require more CPU time. Which, surprise, is why two half resolution frames don't compare to one full resolution frame.
Thanks for proving my point though.
Or not.
Q: Is there any specific technological feat that you're most proud of?
Steve: Pretty much the engine overall, because we were able to get a lot of performance out of the GameCube, and it allowed us to have these really gorgeous environments that were very rich in detail. That's mainly thanks to the engineering support we received.
Michael: Also, to run at 60 frames per second and achieve all of that is pretty amazing.
Miyamoto: The ability to show off all those particle effects at once and still have it run at 60 frames per second. That was impressive.
From an interview with three Metroid developers
xlincity
Yeah, isn't that game the greatest?
Takes a while to learn it -- looks a bit similar, but the emphasis is totally on flow of goods, unlike SimCity.
Replace every three generations, or when things are three times as fast as your current device.
:-)
:-)
I've gotta disagree. That's much too frequent. Besides costing you more, it eliminates the "good feeling" you get from having something much, much better than you just did.
I can assure you that the andrenaline caused by moving from a 8Mhz Mac Plus with a 68000, single-tasking OS, 8.5 inch B/W (NOT grayscale) to a 60Mhz Power Mac with a PPC 601, multitasking OS, and 14 inch color screen was quite intense.
I tend to take the following approach (though I don't play the latest and greatest games).
Storage: Upgrade every 4x to 6x. I went 80MB->250MB->1GB->6GB->30GB.
CPU: I think upgrading less than 10x takes all the joy out of the upgrade.
Sound card: Why would anyone upgrade these? Old sound cards are great.
And there are lots of games for the PC, if you don't have some fetish for the very bleeding edge. Which you can run much more cheaply.
When will people get it through their heads that PCs do *not* need to be upgraded constantly to play games?
And you've got four or more controllers plugged in to that PC?
:-) More realistically, I have three, though I've only ever used two at once.
Sure, USB. Try and plug 127 controllers into your console.
It's in your living room where you can all sit in comfort.
Err...no, PCs have better online support. No need to make friends walk over to your house to play.
It's plugged in to a screen bigger that 19".
Nope. Why would I want it to be? The resolution is much more important than the size. Heck, the other day I was playing a Dreamcast game from a projector to get a 20' tall image. Looked awful.
You have a bunch of friends who come over to play.
They don't *need* to, because they can play remotely.
Which, granted, is about fifteen feet away in a dorm...
The machine doesn't make more noise than the F1 car sounds coming from the stereo as you play.
My computer is much more quiet than the PS/2 my roommate has. That has a ridiculously loud drive, and you can hear the thing read. Last time I played on an Xbox, same thing was true. Dunno about the GC.
You don't keyboard or mouse to do anything.
Because you *cannot* use the keyboard or mouse. Which, for many types of games is a *huge* drawback. The mouse is *much* better than a controller for strategy games (real time or turn based). It's also much better for FPSes. The keyboard is essential for games that use more than the puny eight buttons or so on the gamepad (a proper Quake setup, a roguelike), anywhere you want to type text...
Hell, most of these clowns keep quoting stuff like 'games that run at 60 frames per second' without knowing that their fucking TV only shows them 30.
Hell, most of the clowns criticizing these clowns keep quoting stuff like "TV only shows them 30" without knowing that it runs at 60.
What the hell metric are you looking at? You can't say that two interlaced frames use anywhere near the same amount of cycles that a single frame uses.
Think of it as running at 60 fps, half vertical resolution. *That* would be accurate.
Until alternatives mature expect more games to be leaving the mac and Linux and going to the Windows platform.
Interestingly enough, most Linux games *do* get ported to Windows. Of course, they don't "leave" in this case...
(my friend tried StarCraft on WineX on a 500 mhz with 256 ram, and it ran like ass... on windows, perfectly fine).
He wasn't using DGA. He was just using SHM. If you use SHM, WINE will run very slowly. Starcraft under WINE using DGA runs slightly faster than it did for me under NT 4 (and doesn't have the damn "looping sound" DirectSound bug under Linux).
You lads also have Ambrosia Software, Spiderweb Software (which now usually does Windows versions as well). I have wonderful memories of both those companies from Mac OS Classic days.
Plus, a lot of the ports are better than the Windows original. Few reach the level of the Warcraft II port (where the Mac version had 3d sound and TCP/IP networking added by the porting company), but frequently people buying the Mac version get expansions for free and get all the bugfixes that Windows gamers have to find themselves and wait for the company to fix.
The Mac can run Fallout, Close Combat, and the Angband clones. That's enough to keep me happy on just about any system. I wish Linux could do that (to my great disappointment, WINE does not yet handle Close Combat, but with any luck, it will soon -- I've noticed that both the winex and wine trees have in the last few months had clipping code added to DirectX...)
Dynamic DNS. Have it change your hostname to something nonsensical when your computer is not connected after a timeout.
Still a hack -- and not as good from a user POV.
No modern FTP server has these flaws. Or if you're using one that does, then switch to another one (any of them)... I reccommend ProFTPd.
If you don't have list of upload, you also lose the ability to do resumes of failed transfers. (licq, the only IM client I use, *does* have the ability to do this, so I would assume that AIM does as well). Many UNIX FTP servers (possibly not ProFTPd) use the UNIX permission system to handle security, which does not differentiate between creation and write access for files.
Not in this case. In this case, the guy is trying to access files on his unattended computer at home. Basically, exactly what FTP (or better yet, SSH) is for.
Hmm. The part I was reading was about people collaborating.
In the USA, men don't get drafted either.
If you haven't filled out your draft card (which makes you eligible for being drafted), and you're 18 or over, and a male citizen of the United States, you're in violation of federal law.
And perhaps Israel does this, but I'm talking about the United States, not Israel.
That's a pretty thoughtless comment, given the seriousness of the Geneva convention and our nearness to killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Oh, get off your high horse. I don't agree with the idea of going to war with Iraq either, but I'll be damned if people are going to dictate my sense of humor in such a situation.
Incidently, Iraq isn't a Geneva signatory, IIRC.
That's a bundle -- you get an amp and headphones.
$10K for headphones alone, however, is ludicrous.
Or make sure your MP3s are encoded at 320 and not 128.
I still can't figure out why *anyone* uses CBR MP3s at all. CBR produces significantly lower quality for a given amount of data (in my listening tests, CBR requires about 50% more data than VBR to get equivalently good-sounding audio). There is *one* reason that CBR was developed, and that's for streaming audio over the network. If you aren't running a streaming server, for the love of God, use VBR encoding.
If an audiophile is going to spend $10,000 to buy a set of headphones, they dont want a PC.
If someone got them to pay $10K for a pair of headphones, they aren't an audiophile -- they're an idiot.