Legit use: I had to lock up a rouge DHCP server that was spewing out bad address to machines and noone could get net access... Couldn't find the physical machine so we just locked it up... didn't use BO2K for it, some other script, but it saved the day.
MFC is the peice of crap that is responsible for the majority of bloat in the Win32 world... use a std::string for gods sake.
I hate it when someone does a #include when all they want is a string class and ends up adding 6 dll linkages at runtime... if win32 programmers knew what they were doing we wouldn't need splashscreens!
if your GUI goes in NT you do not need a reboot...
ctrl-alt-del will get you to taskmanager file | run to get a windowized command line type "explorer" this will execute explorer.exe which is your default graphical shell.. all your stuff comes back. OR, alternatively, end-task explorer on purpose and use an alternative shell (like litestep for intance)
two problems there, one is *could* term mid-step, meaning there is still some doubt. Two, why isn't > there a progression of steps, instead of > concrete, finite distinctions? For that matter, > how can we classify species under evolution? > There should be sooo many variations and grades > between species that one couldn't say for sure. > According to Evolution, our classification should > be more like: > "This species is 40% this and and 30% that and 1% > this..."
Look at GA's... they tend to speciate at local maxima. Solutions between local maxima converge on the local maxima and in a well-evolved population are rare or non-existant.
Using occam's razor (sp?). We, as thinking people should tend to postulate on the side of simplicity.
We can conceive of the chemical processes by which we reproduce.
We can concieve of the physical processes by which these chemicals are formed.
We can concieve of simple self-reproducing chemicals appearing infrequently by random processes.
We can demonstrate through genetic algorythm that reproducing structures fed by random processes can and invariably do give rise to complex ordered structures when there ability to reproduce is based on some fitness function.
We can demonstrate all of the above things happening in all life that we have come in contact with.
The simplest solution to the question is that life started and is currently based on the above known processes. The alternative is to define an undemonstratable and yet undiscovered system that gave rise this process. I tend to postulate based on known processes rather than unknows when it is concievable that the knowns can give rise to the observable.
I ALSO admit that my belief in this postulate is a BELIEF and not a FACT. All experimental evidence may point in the direction of the postulate, but it will not become a fact until someone goes back in time and watches it happen. Sometimes even well proven theories are overthrown, and if God himself comes down, states that he created us, and demonstrates his ability then, of course, he will be the simplest explanation for the occurence of me.
The Universe itself may not be a closed system. If the observable universe is only a single universe amongst an infinite number (a theory rapidly growing in popularity, do to the problem of a "big bang" happening spontaneously with no intervention) then it is conceivable that these other "uiniverses" interact with each other in n-dimentional space, making the entire system infinite and hence, NOTHING is closed.
But of course, laws attributed to closed systems work fairly well when dealing with a pseudo-closed system, but since nothing is ever truly closed, anomalies are plentiful. I once saw a "perpetual motion" machine that was actually fed by the heat in the air.. If you looked at the system as closed then it seemed to break physical laws, but by taking into account that the sun is beating energy down on the system you realize that it was simply a solar powered device.
We die because it is advantageous to our species to die. Were we to live forever in our dynamic environment, we would compete with our offspring for resources and our genetic code would change slower than the environment we live in, so we would quickly fall prey to a faster evolving population. Death by old age insures our continued viability.
Slashdot Mirror
Legit use: I had to lock up a rouge DHCP server that was spewing out bad address to machines and noone could get net access... Couldn't find the physical machine so we just locked it up... didn't use BO2K for it, some other script, but it saved the day.
You use CString and call yourself an OO dev?
MFC is the peice of crap that is responsible for the majority of bloat in the Win32 world... use a std::string for gods sake.
I hate it when someone does a #include when all they want is a string class and ends up adding 6 dll linkages at runtime... if win32 programmers knew what they were doing we wouldn't need splashscreens!
if your GUI goes in NT you do not need a reboot...
ctrl-alt-del will get you to taskmanager
file | run to get a windowized command line
type "explorer"
this will execute explorer.exe which is your default graphical shell.. all your stuff comes back.
OR, alternatively, end-task explorer on purpose and use an alternative shell (like litestep for intance)
What about NTOSKRNL.EXE which I believe is the "main" kernal program before linking.. 907K on my machine
two problems there, one is *could* term mid-step, meaning there is still some doubt. Two, why isn't > there a progression of steps, instead of
> concrete, finite distinctions? For that matter,
> how can we classify species under evolution?
> There should be sooo many variations and grades
> between species that one couldn't say for sure.
> According to Evolution, our classification should
> be more like:
> "This species is 40% this and and 30% that and 1%
> this..."
Look at GA's... they tend to speciate at local maxima. Solutions between local maxima converge on the local maxima and in a well-evolved population are rare or non-existant.
Question is though... WHY does it become a lower priority.
You explained the "how do we age?" question... not the "why?"
What do you mean, "freak of nature"?
Using occam's razor (sp?). We, as thinking people should tend to postulate on the side of simplicity.
We can conceive of the chemical processes by which we reproduce.
We can concieve of the physical processes by which these chemicals are formed.
We can concieve of simple self-reproducing chemicals appearing infrequently by random processes.
We can demonstrate through genetic algorythm that reproducing structures fed by random processes can and invariably do give rise to complex ordered structures when there ability to reproduce is based on some fitness function.
We can demonstrate all of the above things happening in all life that we have come in contact with.
The simplest solution to the question is that life started and is currently based on the above known processes. The alternative is to define an undemonstratable and yet undiscovered system that gave rise this process. I tend to postulate based on known processes rather than unknows when it is concievable that the knowns can give rise to the observable.
I ALSO admit that my belief in this postulate is a BELIEF and not a FACT. All experimental evidence may point in the direction of the postulate, but it will not become a fact until someone goes back in time and watches it happen. Sometimes even well proven theories are overthrown, and if God himself comes down, states that he created us, and demonstrates his ability then, of course, he will be the simplest explanation for the occurence of me.
The Universe itself may not be a closed system. If the observable universe is only a single universe amongst an infinite number (a theory rapidly growing in popularity, do to the problem of a "big bang" happening spontaneously with no intervention) then it is conceivable that these other "uiniverses" interact with each other in n-dimentional space, making the entire system infinite and hence, NOTHING is closed.
But of course, laws attributed to closed systems work fairly well when dealing with a pseudo-closed system, but since nothing is ever truly closed, anomalies are plentiful. I once saw a "perpetual motion" machine that was actually fed by the heat in the air.. If you looked at the system as closed then it seemed to break physical laws, but by taking into account that the sun is beating energy down on the system you realize that it was simply a solar powered device.
We die because it is advantageous to our species to die. Were we to live forever in our dynamic environment, we would compete with our offspring for resources and our genetic code would change slower than the environment we live in, so we would quickly fall prey to a faster evolving population. Death by old age insures our continued viability.
Yes, I know it was supposed to be humourous...