So now you can test kids and see how many conservatives vs. liberal there will be in 10, 20, etc years? Should make for more fun in predicting the elections.
I wonder what the margin of error would be? Can you predict how many will register to vote and will?
I acutally went through something similar. Mine was $50 per and then it went up to $60. I got some free upload bump and a $10 discount and $10 hike. So techincally I pay $70 but I have $10 off. I just asked to go to the $50 service, which I can do now with no fee since I'm past 1 year of service (I've acutally been with them 4 years, but I "reordered" a year ago to get the line's wiring changed and it apparently reupped me).
I like 1.5/256. I originall had 700/256 but the downloaded were a little slow. 1.5 is enough for what I do. They also have a 6 down now too for $100/month.
I chose my ISP for their record of good service and also their nice service agreement, which lets me run servers, VPNs, etc. I noticed that they are rolling out a new service that doesn't require a local phone (ie Verizon in my case) so I could get DSL and voice over IP if I wanted, or some other local like AT&T.
How long is that for? Most of the cheap/month rates I've seen are for the first 3-6 months, then the rate goes up to around 40-50/month. That is why I stuck with my current ISP at $50/month (that and great customer service, a rarity).
Technology like this, esp at the early stage, would only be for the blind. However, as the technology becomes mature, it certainly could offer people the option for enhancement.
Laser surgery has been around a little while now and I'm sure you'd get many many people in/. telling of great success with it.
Personally, I was considering it, but a Dr. made we rethink it, because noone with the surgery has grown old and they don't know how it'll necessarily interact with cataracts, and other eye problems you get.
I actually stopped wearing contacts a few years ago because I kept getting infections and other issues. I find that I'm good with just glasses. However, I'm also really blind without them. So, like I did not too long ago, if I drop the glasses while driving, I'm going to have a problem. I've been rethinking the laser surgery option a bit, because I can't see without the glasses. It is not really an option for me to function all day if they break, or something.
I think if I was a little nearsighted and could get by, I'd wait. However, I'm thinking about it again with my primary concern being the cost, since I don't have the money just lying around and this is not something I'd do cheap.
Sounds a lot like what they had for Geordi in ST:TNG. He wore the visor which transmitted the images for him. Later he went to an implant on the eye.
In B5 they had G'Kar using a fake eye which transmitted to an implant at the base of the socket.
I imagine that as they develop the ability to shrink the transmitter it'll move from a pack on the belt, to a part of the eyewear, eventually maybe to a fake eye.
Joe is walking down the street on the way to an event talking to his buddy about the latest big summer movie. It was the bomb! Suddenly men in sunglasses and suits grab him up.
Yeah, this should be fun. How much time is going to be wasted with people having to check reports from the software where someone used a work like bomb in a normal context to dismiss it. I can see the eyes blurring and any real mentions getting lost in all the false alerts.
I don't know if this software is capable, but they need to make sure that it just doesn't check for certain words, but also the context. Even then, the number of false alerts could overwhelm any security force.
The software will only be as good as the people that interpret the information it generates.
Yes. That is for convicted offenders. If insurance companies want to record your speeding habits to offer a discount, I bet they wouldn't mind recording how often you drive with alcohol in your system, even if legal, and discount people that don't drive under the influence.
Personally, I think that the alcohol tester level is a great thing and is a good way to prevent people from driving drunk. I just wonder how practical it would be on all vehicles. How error prone is it for example? Say I wash with mouthwash and run out the door to go to work, will I be allowed to start my car?
Personally, I wish my city had better public transportation. I have no choice but to drive to work each day. If I liveds in say suburban NJ, I'd take the train every day (did this not to long ago while on a business trip). Sure, I was on the train for a good hour and all, but I just had to sit, relax, and read the paper. Must easier than driving. Heck, some passengers even had beer with them (not that I was sure that is legal).
So you've got two parts to a company, one is profitable, the other in a hot area with lots of better establish comptetition that is loosing money. What to do?
This sounds like a joke. Or a bunch of execs taking the money and running and leaving a ruined mess behind.
If they wanted to compete, they'd follow the microsoft model and build the burning software business up to a point where it can sustain lots of losses while they poor money into the music store. Like ms with the OS and Office and anything else they do.
If I was a stockholder I'd be either running and running fast, or considering a lawsuit of the execs that just made this decision (assuming they don't hold most if not all the stock).
How useful would this be though, if you speed? I drive 20+ miles of highway each way on my commute. The speed limit is 65. Everyone is at 70+. What about neighborhoods where the limit is 30? As long as I don't have to send the data, I might consider it, but what is use if I'd never send the data since I speed.
The only people that would use this are the ones that can't, seniors that drive 55 in the right lane while people fly by them (at least you hope they are in the right lane).
How long until technology like this becomes madatory? How long until to drive you need to blow into a device to make sure you are not drunk and then the car won't go above the speed limit, etc?
Personally, I've got a BS, in Molecular Biology. I did minor in CS, but it was a bare minimum of CS type knowledge. To this day, I still find I need some CS concepts explained to me that people learned in college.
I worked as a tech support staffer at first and I was hired because of my bio degree (same area my boss had his degree in). I've moved to programming via certficiations.
I went into Lotus Notes, getting certified, and then getting a job. Then moved to from there to other software packages and more core programming (Microsoft and Java). My last few jobs I've gotten all via job experience, but at this job, I did need a Bachelors of some sort.
One of my best friends and a top techinical guy in not only a few companies we've both worked at, but in his area too, doesn't have a Bachelor's. It hasn't stopped him. He gets the occasional hurdle, but the company trying to hire him always jumps it.
Years ago, the high school diploma became a requirement for many jobs. We've taken it for granted now, because few people fail to get one, or a GED.
Now, we're seeing some sort of college degree starting to become a requirement. Certainly, if considering someone for a job where the experience is similar, the degree can be the difference. However, if the experience is exceptional, I think most companies will make exceptions. The only time it might be a problem, is on a gov't contract or something, that states worker minimums of degrees or something.
Back when I was conducting interviews from time to time, the degree was always a part of my decision, but I always focused on the experience.
A lot also depended on the company. If I was hiring for more hard core CS work, I'd tend towards people with a CS degree and similar work. Not someone with an IT degree.
However, when working for a consulting company, I found that sometimes, the best engineers, were the worst consultants.
I recall interviewing 3 college hires once. One was an IT person, with basic computing skills. One was a IT person with poor computing skills, and one a CS person with great skills. I recommended the first IT person, if the job would entail a mix of consulting, management, and not heavy CS work. The CS person was perfect for the programming, and had the personality for consulting too. They did choose the CS person, but a lot of that was because of the job.
At that company, I rose into a techincal lead position over several people with CS degrees because of my experience, etc. However, I've always had to explain the Bio degree in any interview and except in the rare case, it has always been either a negative or simply neutral.
I think a CS degree is the best bet for someone, especially today, looking to start out. For someone in the job market, it will be all about your certs and experience, but the degree is one more thing to set you and the other applicants apart.
Also, the mass of MCSEs, etc out there is diluting the strength of such certifications. That college that focuses on certs, etc will turn out people that might get hired quicker than someone with just a degree and college experience, but those people will not move ahead as quick with showing something exceptional, while someone with more than just certifications should.
I would have pursued a MS in CS, or should have, not long after college, but at this point, my years of experience is enough of an equivelant to make the cost and time to get a Masters not worth it. However, I will probably loose out some day to the person with a MS an similar experience.
For me, a Masters with a science BS would've been a good combination. What I don't get are the people with a BS in CS who go on for a Masters while also working. They take 5 years to get the MS and end up with job experience that is pretty much an equivalent. I'd rather pursue a MBA or something that I can't get in job experience, which could be more useful to me in moving up at a company now.
I used to work (back in high school) as an intern at the Cold Spring Harbor teaching lab. They also had small museum upstairs. On display was their nobel prize. I would go upstairs from time to time to stare and it.
Dr. Watson was, and may still be, working at the labs. I didn't get to speak to him other than "hello" but he was leaving the lab just as I was arriving for work one day.
For all the hero worship we give to athletics and celebrities, he is still the coolest person I've ever met. And the nobel beats the Lombardi trophy in awe as far as I am concerned (and I've had a chance to see both).
How much do people check on feedback? I've never bought on ebay because I just don't trust it. I have a friend that has been selling stuff on ebay for a few years and he will sell stuff (for a cut of the sale) for other people.
Originally I was skeptical, but when I recently sold some stuff with him I found that his status as a powerseller, etc gets him more money that I'd get selling on my own (with no rating) so it makes up for his cut.
Anyone hear about people or even business doing this? I is an online pawn broker essentially. I think that the power of a very high rating seems to work as it is intended and give people enough security to feel more comfortable buying.
For those that will think I'm nuts for not selling on my own, he also takes care of the postings, pictures, etc. I just give him a box of stuff.
What if the software was a keystroke recorder? That could "hurt" or damage you. Say then it send the information somewhere and someone scans for strings like www.mybank.com. The next thing you might type is your login and password. Boom, goodbye money.
I'd want to know if a site I was visiting opened me to such risk. Needless to say, if say slashdot was infected as such, and I was robbed, I'd probably seek to sue the website since they didn't warn me first, especially since the change of catching the thief is remove at best.
Perhaps. It might also depend on what horrible is. I like to be able to boot up a machine and not have it immediately start using the swap file. On one PC I've used, with 256MB RAM. XP would start using the swap with no apps loaded.
I've found that Win2000 will run decent with 256mb and well with 512. XP runs pretty well with 512mb. Currently I run 1gb RAM only because I had an extra chip after a CPU fried on me. My other machines are a win2000 machine with 256mb and an XP machine with 192mb RAM (and is no longer in use).
At a party this weekend we noted that it seems like a lot of IT professionals like to play music in their off time.
Several of the IT people at the party were in different bands. Plus I work with another guy that is also in a band. I've noticed that a lot of my co-workers often wear headphones and listen to music while working.
I play (or played, as I am out of pratices) Sax and Piano.
In terms of listening habits, I vary depending on my mood. I have a lot of rock and classical. I avoid pop, rap, and country. When I used to go on late night coding binges I'd often find that the later it got, the loader the music I listened to.
As far as the study goes. I'd be curious too as to the gender of the participants. Women and men will listen to different kinds of music as well and some jobs might tend to find a skewed gender ratio that might effect the music being listened too (then again, IT is skewed)
Just how good would these minimum requirements be? I've seen some software that will "run" in minimum situations, but it is really not worth a thing.
But how many people buy PCs now with only 256MB Ram? XP will run horrible on just that much. I recently bought a new PC. I got 512MB and an AMD3000+ for around $500. I could've gone with 256MB for a little less, but anything more than the cheapest PCs seem to come with more RAM now.
Does anyone have an older PC that they plan to play games on? Just how powerful will the recommended PC need to be? I personally doubt many people will be upgrading older PCs for game play. It is simpler to just buy a newer one now, as even the cheaper new ones are a siginificant jump.
Check out Amtrak's schedules. Trains on the east coast run DC to Boston almost hourly. The metroliner and Accela trains have only a few stops which last only around 5 minutes, except NYC.
My future in-laws took the auto-train to FL. They found it a conveinient way to go. I agree that it would be nice to have such transport all along the coast. It would be a unique element for Amtrak.
You hit it right there. The key is cost. I can take the train to NYC/NJ/LI in a shorter time than the drive. Especially if I hit traffic. However, even with gas, the cost is only around $40-$50 each way, while Amtrak charges around twice that. Plus, when driving, each person costs the same total, while on train, it is $80 each. That is the real problem.
The east coast is pretty connected. You can ride Amtrack from DC to Boston. When I was working on a gig in CT I road the train from Baltimore each week. I have also taken the train to NYC several times.
From Baltimore you can hit the limited light rail at Penn Station, or the airport station (not connected to the airport itself). DC I imagine connects to the DC Metro, NYC you come in a Penn Station, were you can hit the NJ Transit, LIRR, or NYC Subway.
I found that in most cases, I'll still drive. But that is because there are 2 of us and driving might cost $50 with tolls and gas, but the train is $80 each.
I do believe there are some ways to limit the time on the more expensive Amtrack trains too.
Amtrak also runs to FL with the auto-train from Richmond and to Chicago IIRC.
I've ridden the subways in SF, DC, Boston, London, and several other cities. They can vary, but the subway is a good way to get around a major city when it is well planned out, stop wise.
Baltimore does have a subway, much to my surprise. Which tells you how useful it is. Ironically, I grew up on Long Island, but I've never ridden the NYC subway.
As far as Amtrak's quality, it doesn't differ much IMO from air travel. I've ridden from the basic unreserved seating train to the Accela Express. The Accela is actually very nice and comfortable, like flying on a newer plane with some decent leg room. The basic trains are like flying Southwest, or any 737 and other such older plane. Not terrible, not the best. The train is easy too, because you can get up and move about with ease.
I've experienced on time trains to the Accela actually breaking down and I had to jump a different train. Then again, I've had to wait a day for a flight when the plane broke down and there wasn't anything else to the next day.
The US has an extensive road system and most people own cars, so driving will always be the preferred way to go. However, with the size of the US, if I am heading to CA from MD, I would rather fly 6 hours then drive or ride a train for days.
The only time I've know someone to drive to CA was some friends of mine that wanted to see the country. Sorta like when my sister took the trains across Europe one summer. I doubt someone from London would use trains to travel to say, Rome, versus flying.
Consider the US east coast, say from DC to Boston. It is connected by Amtrak rail lines and then local mass transit rail. Compare that in size to Germany and Japan. That might be a more even way than comparing the entire US.
Personally, I wish the train was cheaper in the US. I would be much more likely to take it, if say a 1 way ticket was around 35$ to NYC. This way for 2, it'd be only a little more than driving and worth the comfort and ease. Right now, I'd have to pay around $80. I could fly on southwest to LI for around that.
I own 2 cars. A sports car and an SUV. I plan to replace the sports car with something like a Mazada3, Civic, etc once I can afford to.
I bought the SUV primarily because of how much of a pain it is to load large things into the sports car (or even a small car). Medium sized square boxes (flat ones are easier), TVs, suitcases, etc all gave me issues from time to time.
I live in a city and I've been using the SUV to haul junk to the landfill, bring home large boxes, a christmass tree, etc. Without the SUV, I'd have either been paying for shipping (large truck, worse pollution than me) on a lot of things.
Personally, I find having 1 truck/SUV to be a great benefit. After experiencing the sports car expenses, etc when using it as an every day car, I'm definately not going that route next time.
Do note, I have a Jeep Liberty, which is a "small" SUV. It gets car like MPG and is rarely too small for the level of hauling I do. I don't plan to ever upgrade to one of the monster size SUVs, even once I move out of the city.
Back in 95 or so I recall that Penn State's VM system would let someone send emails where all the information could be set at the command line. I would get emails from bgates@microsoft.com and such all the time from my friend who discovered this.
I'm sure I could've traced the email back to the VMS that originated it, but I don't know if the system would have tracked his connection and sending of the email. I was not like he could log in and create the email and set the reply to, etc. He had to connect on the correct port and send commands as if he were an email client.
True, but then again look at a turtle or a tortise. They have a lot of trouble if they end up on their back. They are not likely to get that way (at least unless there is some little kid nearby to place them like that) but one could attempt to go down to a stream along too great a slope and fall.
It is not likely, but maybe the T-Rex was not likely to fall. It might still run and take that chance, but eventually poor runners would get selected out of the population too.
Seeing these point, I wonder about its size. Why is it so large? If it is a scavenger, what advantage would size give it? As a predator I can more easily see the benfit of size.
Also, don't many animals with tails use them to counter balance themselves when running? From skeletons we'd know the length of a T-Rex's tail, but the weight of the tail would be primarily in the muscle mass. Maybe they had thick tails and didn't fall over as easily.
Slashdot Mirror
So now you can test kids and see how many conservatives vs. liberal there will be in 10, 20, etc years? Should make for more fun in predicting the elections.
I wonder what the margin of error would be? Can you predict how many will register to vote and will?
I acutally went through something similar. Mine was $50 per and then it went up to $60. I got some free upload bump and a $10 discount and $10 hike. So techincally I pay $70 but I have $10 off. I just asked to go to the $50 service, which I can do now with no fee since I'm past 1 year of service (I've acutally been with them 4 years, but I "reordered" a year ago to get the line's wiring changed and it apparently reupped me).
I like 1.5/256. I originall had 700/256 but the downloaded were a little slow. 1.5 is enough for what I do. They also have a 6 down now too for $100/month.
I chose my ISP for their record of good service and also their nice service agreement, which lets me run servers, VPNs, etc. I noticed that they are rolling out a new service that doesn't require a local phone (ie Verizon in my case) so I could get DSL and voice over IP if I wanted, or some other local like AT&T.
Satellite broadband is available and targets such people. Though last I spoke to a user, the setup costs were still higher than cable or DSL.
How long is that for? Most of the cheap /month rates I've seen are for the first 3-6 months, then the rate goes up to around 40-50/month. That is why I stuck with my current ISP at $50/month (that and great customer service, a rarity).
Technology like this, esp at the early stage, would only be for the blind. However, as the technology becomes mature, it certainly could offer people the option for enhancement.
/. telling of great success with it.
Laser surgery has been around a little while now and I'm sure you'd get many many people in
Personally, I was considering it, but a Dr. made we rethink it, because noone with the surgery has grown old and they don't know how it'll necessarily interact with cataracts, and other eye problems you get.
I actually stopped wearing contacts a few years ago because I kept getting infections and other issues. I find that I'm good with just glasses. However, I'm also really blind without them. So, like I did not too long ago, if I drop the glasses while driving, I'm going to have a problem. I've been rethinking the laser surgery option a bit, because I can't see without the glasses. It is not really an option for me to function all day if they break, or something.
I think if I was a little nearsighted and could get by, I'd wait. However, I'm thinking about it again with my primary concern being the cost, since I don't have the money just lying around and this is not something I'd do cheap.
Sounds a lot like what they had for Geordi in ST:TNG. He wore the visor which transmitted the images for him. Later he went to an implant on the eye.
In B5 they had G'Kar using a fake eye which transmitted to an implant at the base of the socket.
I imagine that as they develop the ability to shrink the transmitter it'll move from a pack on the belt, to a part of the eyewear, eventually maybe to a fake eye.
This is cool!
Joe is walking down the street on the way to an event talking to his buddy about the latest big summer movie. It was the bomb! Suddenly men in sunglasses and suits grab him up.
Yeah, this should be fun. How much time is going to be wasted with people having to check reports from the software where someone used a work like bomb in a normal context to dismiss it. I can see the eyes blurring and any real mentions getting lost in all the false alerts.
I don't know if this software is capable, but they need to make sure that it just doesn't check for certain words, but also the context. Even then, the number of false alerts could overwhelm any security force.
The software will only be as good as the people that interpret the information it generates.
Yes. That is for convicted offenders. If insurance companies want to record your speeding habits to offer a discount, I bet they wouldn't mind recording how often you drive with alcohol in your system, even if legal, and discount people that don't drive under the influence.
Personally, I think that the alcohol tester level is a great thing and is a good way to prevent people from driving drunk. I just wonder how practical it would be on all vehicles. How error prone is it for example? Say I wash with mouthwash and run out the door to go to work, will I be allowed to start my car?
Personally, I wish my city had better public transportation. I have no choice but to drive to work each day. If I liveds in say suburban NJ, I'd take the train every day (did this not to long ago while on a business trip). Sure, I was on the train for a good hour and all, but I just had to sit, relax, and read the paper. Must easier than driving. Heck, some passengers even had beer with them (not that I was sure that is legal).
I started using Trillian a while ago now when I started finding myself using AIM to chat with one group of people and Yahoo another.
I find it works well (except when yahoo updates something and breaks it for a few days) and they do a good job with updating it. I'd recommend it.
So you've got two parts to a company, one is profitable, the other in a hot area with lots of better establish comptetition that is loosing money. What to do?
This sounds like a joke. Or a bunch of execs taking the money and running and leaving a ruined mess behind.
If they wanted to compete, they'd follow the microsoft model and build the burning software business up to a point where it can sustain lots of losses while they poor money into the music store. Like ms with the OS and Office and anything else they do.
If I was a stockholder I'd be either running and running fast, or considering a lawsuit of the execs that just made this decision (assuming they don't hold most if not all the stock).
How useful would this be though, if you speed? I drive 20+ miles of highway each way on my commute. The speed limit is 65. Everyone is at 70+. What about neighborhoods where the limit is 30? As long as I don't have to send the data, I might consider it, but what is use if I'd never send the data since I speed.
The only people that would use this are the ones that can't, seniors that drive 55 in the right lane while people fly by them (at least you hope they are in the right lane).
How long until technology like this becomes madatory? How long until to drive you need to blow into a device to make sure you are not drunk and then the car won't go above the speed limit, etc?
Personally, I've got a BS, in Molecular Biology. I did minor in CS, but it was a bare minimum of CS type knowledge. To this day, I still find I need some CS concepts explained to me that people learned in college.
I worked as a tech support staffer at first and I was hired because of my bio degree (same area my boss had his degree in). I've moved to programming via certficiations.
I went into Lotus Notes, getting certified, and then getting a job. Then moved to from there to other software packages and more core programming (Microsoft and Java). My last few jobs I've gotten all via job experience, but at this job, I did need a Bachelors of some sort.
One of my best friends and a top techinical guy in not only a few companies we've both worked at, but in his area too, doesn't have a Bachelor's. It hasn't stopped him. He gets the occasional hurdle, but the company trying to hire him always jumps it.
Years ago, the high school diploma became a requirement for many jobs. We've taken it for granted now, because few people fail to get one, or a GED.
Now, we're seeing some sort of college degree starting to become a requirement. Certainly, if considering someone for a job where the experience is similar, the degree can be the difference. However, if the experience is exceptional, I think most companies will make exceptions. The only time it might be a problem, is on a gov't contract or something, that states worker minimums of degrees or something.
Back when I was conducting interviews from time to time, the degree was always a part of my decision, but I always focused on the experience.
A lot also depended on the company. If I was hiring for more hard core CS work, I'd tend towards people with a CS degree and similar work. Not someone with an IT degree.
However, when working for a consulting company, I found that sometimes, the best engineers, were the worst consultants.
I recall interviewing 3 college hires once. One was an IT person, with basic computing skills. One was a IT person with poor computing skills, and one a CS person with great skills. I recommended the first IT person, if the job would entail a mix of consulting, management, and not heavy CS work. The CS person was perfect for the programming, and had the personality for consulting too. They did choose the CS person, but a lot of that was because of the job.
At that company, I rose into a techincal lead position over several people with CS degrees because of my experience, etc. However, I've always had to explain the Bio degree in any interview and except in the rare case, it has always been either a negative or simply neutral.
I think a CS degree is the best bet for someone, especially today, looking to start out. For someone in the job market, it will be all about your certs and experience, but the degree is one more thing to set you and the other applicants apart.
Also, the mass of MCSEs, etc out there is diluting the strength of such certifications. That college that focuses on certs, etc will turn out people that might get hired quicker than someone with just a degree and college experience, but those people will not move ahead as quick with showing something exceptional, while someone with more than just certifications should.
I would have pursued a MS in CS, or should have, not long after college, but at this point, my years of experience is enough of an equivelant to make the cost and time to get a Masters not worth it. However, I will probably loose out some day to the person with a MS an similar experience.
For me, a Masters with a science BS would've been a good combination. What I don't get are the people with a BS in CS who go on for a Masters while also working. They take 5 years to get the MS and end up with job experience that is pretty much an equivalent. I'd rather pursue a MBA or something that I can't get in job experience, which could be more useful to me in moving up at a company now.
I used to work (back in high school) as an intern at the Cold Spring Harbor teaching lab. They also had small museum upstairs. On display was their nobel prize. I would go upstairs from time to time to stare and it.
Dr. Watson was, and may still be, working at the labs. I didn't get to speak to him other than "hello" but he was leaving the lab just as I was arriving for work one day.
For all the hero worship we give to athletics and celebrities, he is still the coolest person I've ever met. And the nobel beats the Lombardi trophy in awe as far as I am concerned (and I've had a chance to see both).
How much do people check on feedback? I've never bought on ebay because I just don't trust it. I have a friend that has been selling stuff on ebay for a few years and he will sell stuff (for a cut of the sale) for other people.
Originally I was skeptical, but when I recently sold some stuff with him I found that his status as a powerseller, etc gets him more money that I'd get selling on my own (with no rating) so it makes up for his cut.
Anyone hear about people or even business doing this? I is an online pawn broker essentially. I think that the power of a very high rating seems to work as it is intended and give people enough security to feel more comfortable buying.
For those that will think I'm nuts for not selling on my own, he also takes care of the postings, pictures, etc. I just give him a box of stuff.
What if the software was a keystroke recorder? That could "hurt" or damage you. Say then it send the information somewhere and someone scans for strings like www.mybank.com. The next thing you might type is your login and password. Boom, goodbye money.
I'd want to know if a site I was visiting opened me to such risk. Needless to say, if say slashdot was infected as such, and I was robbed, I'd probably seek to sue the website since they didn't warn me first, especially since the change of catching the thief is remove at best.
Perhaps. It might also depend on what horrible is. I like to be able to boot up a machine and not have it immediately start using the swap file. On one PC I've used, with 256MB RAM. XP would start using the swap with no apps loaded.
I've found that Win2000 will run decent with 256mb and well with 512. XP runs pretty well with 512mb. Currently I run 1gb RAM only because I had an extra chip after a CPU fried on me. My other machines are a win2000 machine with 256mb and an XP machine with 192mb RAM (and is no longer in use).
At a party this weekend we noted that it seems like a lot of IT professionals like to play music in their off time.
Several of the IT people at the party were in different bands. Plus I work with another guy that is also in a band. I've noticed that a lot of my co-workers often wear headphones and listen to music while working.
I play (or played, as I am out of pratices) Sax and Piano.
In terms of listening habits, I vary depending on my mood. I have a lot of rock and classical. I avoid pop, rap, and country. When I used to go on late night coding binges I'd often find that the later it got, the loader the music I listened to.
As far as the study goes. I'd be curious too as to the gender of the participants. Women and men will listen to different kinds of music as well and some jobs might tend to find a skewed gender ratio that might effect the music being listened too (then again, IT is skewed)
Just how good would these minimum requirements be? I've seen some software that will "run" in minimum situations, but it is really not worth a thing.
But how many people buy PCs now with only 256MB Ram? XP will run horrible on just that much. I recently bought a new PC. I got 512MB and an AMD3000+ for around $500. I could've gone with 256MB for a little less, but anything more than the cheapest PCs seem to come with more RAM now.
Does anyone have an older PC that they plan to play games on? Just how powerful will the recommended PC need to be? I personally doubt many people will be upgrading older PCs for game play. It is simpler to just buy a newer one now, as even the cheaper new ones are a siginificant jump.
Check out Amtrak's schedules. Trains on the east coast run DC to Boston almost hourly. The metroliner and Accela trains have only a few stops which last only around 5 minutes, except NYC.
My future in-laws took the auto-train to FL. They found it a conveinient way to go. I agree that it would be nice to have such transport all along the coast. It would be a unique element for Amtrak.
You hit it right there. The key is cost. I can take the train to NYC/NJ/LI in a shorter time than the drive. Especially if I hit traffic. However, even with gas, the cost is only around $40-$50 each way, while Amtrak charges around twice that. Plus, when driving, each person costs the same total, while on train, it is $80 each. That is the real problem.
The east coast is pretty connected. You can ride Amtrack from DC to Boston. When I was working on a gig in CT I road the train from Baltimore each week. I have also taken the train to NYC several times.
From Baltimore you can hit the limited light rail at Penn Station, or the airport station (not connected to the airport itself). DC I imagine connects to the DC Metro, NYC you come in a Penn Station, were you can hit the NJ Transit, LIRR, or NYC Subway.
I found that in most cases, I'll still drive. But that is because there are 2 of us and driving might cost $50 with tolls and gas, but the train is $80 each.
I do believe there are some ways to limit the time on the more expensive Amtrack trains too.
Amtrak also runs to FL with the auto-train from Richmond and to Chicago IIRC.
I've ridden the subways in SF, DC, Boston, London, and several other cities. They can vary, but the subway is a good way to get around a major city when it is well planned out, stop wise.
Baltimore does have a subway, much to my surprise. Which tells you how useful it is. Ironically, I grew up on Long Island, but I've never ridden the NYC subway.
As far as Amtrak's quality, it doesn't differ much IMO from air travel. I've ridden from the basic unreserved seating train to the Accela Express. The Accela is actually very nice and comfortable, like flying on a newer plane with some decent leg room. The basic trains are like flying Southwest, or any 737 and other such older plane. Not terrible, not the best. The train is easy too, because you can get up and move about with ease.
I've experienced on time trains to the Accela actually breaking down and I had to jump a different train. Then again, I've had to wait a day for a flight when the plane broke down and there wasn't anything else to the next day.
The US has an extensive road system and most people own cars, so driving will always be the preferred way to go. However, with the size of the US, if I am heading to CA from MD, I would rather fly 6 hours then drive or ride a train for days.
The only time I've know someone to drive to CA was some friends of mine that wanted to see the country. Sorta like when my sister took the trains across Europe one summer. I doubt someone from London would use trains to travel to say, Rome, versus flying.
Consider the US east coast, say from DC to Boston. It is connected by Amtrak rail lines and then local mass transit rail. Compare that in size to Germany and Japan. That might be a more even way than comparing the entire US.
Personally, I wish the train was cheaper in the US. I would be much more likely to take it, if say a 1 way ticket was around 35$ to NYC. This way for 2, it'd be only a little more than driving and worth the comfort and ease. Right now, I'd have to pay around $80. I could fly on southwest to LI for around that.
I own 2 cars. A sports car and an SUV. I plan to replace the sports car with something like a Mazada3, Civic, etc once I can afford to.
I bought the SUV primarily because of how much of a pain it is to load large things into the sports car (or even a small car). Medium sized square boxes (flat ones are easier), TVs, suitcases, etc all gave me issues from time to time.
I live in a city and I've been using the SUV to haul junk to the landfill, bring home large boxes, a christmass tree, etc. Without the SUV, I'd have either been paying for shipping (large truck, worse pollution than me) on a lot of things.
Personally, I find having 1 truck/SUV to be a great benefit. After experiencing the sports car expenses, etc when using it as an every day car, I'm definately not going that route next time.
Do note, I have a Jeep Liberty, which is a "small" SUV. It gets car like MPG and is rarely too small for the level of hauling I do. I don't plan to ever upgrade to one of the monster size SUVs, even once I move out of the city.
Back in 95 or so I recall that Penn State's VM system would let someone send emails where all the information could be set at the command line. I would get emails from bgates@microsoft.com and such all the time from my friend who discovered this.
I'm sure I could've traced the email back to the VMS that originated it, but I don't know if the system would have tracked his connection and sending of the email. I was not like he could log in and create the email and set the reply to, etc. He had to connect on the correct port and send commands as if he were an email client.
Or try living in a city, then having a rat die under a deck and not seeing it for a few days.
Ugh....
True, but then again look at a turtle or a tortise. They have a lot of trouble if they end up on their back. They are not likely to get that way (at least unless there is some little kid nearby to place them like that) but one could attempt to go down to a stream along too great a slope and fall.
It is not likely, but maybe the T-Rex was not likely to fall. It might still run and take that chance, but eventually poor runners would get selected out of the population too.
Seeing these point, I wonder about its size. Why is it so large? If it is a scavenger, what advantage would size give it? As a predator I can more easily see the benfit of size.
Also, don't many animals with tails use them to counter balance themselves when running? From skeletons we'd know the length of a T-Rex's tail, but the weight of the tail would be primarily in the muscle mass. Maybe they had thick tails and didn't fall over as easily.