Re:SGI message - has anybody else had this?
on
Gnarly Error Messages
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I hate to ruin a perfectly good story, but what you saw was probably "DOUBLE PANIC."
If an SGI box kernel panics, it does exactly what you described, printing the message "KERNEL PANIC" at the top of the textport and spewing out lots of stack traces after it.
Now, kernel panics are, of course, handled by a handler. (Those panic messages don't happen by magic, you know.) If, on the off chance, your machine should panic, and then panic again inside the panic handler-- apart from meaning something is really, really wrong-- the system prints the message "DOUBLE PANIC" on the screen.
That's probably what you saw. I've seen this many times-- always due to faulty hardware.
Of course, I wouldn't put it past SGI to put a joke in their panic messages. This is, of course, the company that warned users in its workstation owner's guide not to "dangle the mouse by its cable or throw mouse at co-workers."
And there's always the ever-popular audiopanel -spinaltap gag. Running audiopanel with the -spinaltap flag makes the VU meters go to 11. Naturally.
Funny story about how the F-117A got its designation. During the late 70's and early 80's, a squadron of Soviet aircraft-- called the Red Squadron, obviously-- operated out of Groom Lake. The pilots of those aircraft used the designations YF-110 through YF-116 in their flight logs. The pilots on the Senior Trend program used the designation YF-117A, simply because it was next in the sequence. When Lockheed printed up the manuals for the first aircraft, they put "YF-117A" on the covers, and neither the government nor Lockheed wanted to pay to have 'em reprinted.
I can't say whether you're right about F-117A's first use in combat, but for the record, the aircraft entered active service in 1982 or 1983. In 1974, the Have Blue stealth technology demonstrator program was launched, and it culminated with the first flight of the Have Blue aircraft-- which was identical to the F-117A in most respects, apart from some differences in tail geometry-- in 1977. In '78, the F-117A went into active development under the code name Senior Trend. The first F-117A left the ground in 1981.
Funny story about how the F-117A got its designation. During the late 70's and early 80's, a squadron of Soviet aircraft-- called the Red Squadron, obviously-- operated out of Groom Lake. The pilots of those aircraft used the designations YF-110 through YF-116 in their flight logs. The pilots on the Senior Trend program used the designation YF-117A, simply because it was next in the sequence. When Lockheed printed up the manuals for the first aircraft, they put "YF-117A" on the covers, and neither the government nor Lockheed wanted to pay to have 'em reprinted.
In terms of stealth and air superiority, the F-22 (hell, even the ill-fated YF-23) would trounce the hell out of any F-117.
The F-22 is not as stealthy-- overall-- as the F-117. The F-22 is designed to be an air dominance fighter with features designed to minimize the radar cross section, but there are other features of the F-22 that contribute to its stealth character in indirect ways. The Raptor's AN/APG-77 radar, for instance, allows the F-22 to engage air targets are a greater range with better accuracy than ever before. This fact, combined with weapons like the AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided missile allow the pilot of an F-22 to identify and engage his enemy while still outside the enemy's effective radar range. The nickname for this capability is "first look, first shot, first kill."
The F-117, on the other hand, is a precision-strike fighter bomber, designed to penetrate high-threat airspaces and deliver attacks against hardened ground targets. The F-117 is much stealthier at low range and against ground-based radars than the F-22 is, and for obvious reasons.
Yes, in terms of air superiority, the F-22 trounces the F-117. That's because the F-117 is not meant to be an air superiority weapon. The Nighthawk is capable of carrying AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, but only for the purpose of eliminating enemy AWACS aircraft from a low-observable platform. The F-117 doesn't even carry a gun.
Ironically, though, the first person to post about the source of the stock photo was "obidonn," a user who didn't exist before Monday afternoon and who hasn't posted anything since. "Keen-eyed," yes, but hardly a "regular."
Who is this "obidonn?" I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that he or she was an insider.
the original poster specifically said he didnt want to connect them via networking
No, the submitter said he didn't want to have to "build a small network," and that he wanted alternatives "other than cables." Using AirPort and self-assigned IP addresses, you don't have to "build a small network." For that matter, you don't have to "build a small network" if you use a crossover cable, unless you count plugging the cable in.
I stand by my original choice.
You can stand by whatever you like. I've already explained why you're wrong. Just to drive the point home: making two laptops-- one Mac, one Windows-- interoperate in the way you describe, with Bluetooth, is even more difficult than using IR between them. AirPort, on the other hand, is specifically designed to do what the submitter wants to do. Exchanging files over Bluetooth-- with what, XModem?-- is like carving roast beef with a screwdriver.
I'm done with you. If you want the last word here, be my guest.
I hate to sound cynical, but I wonder how many people who read this actually knew what the USS Constitution was? I'll bet at least one moderator thought you were making a wisecrack about civil liberties.
Whether you like it or not, Bluetooth CAN be used for LAN access. I'm not saying it's better or worse than any other technology (802.11b for example) merely that it CAN be used for LAN access.
I use Bluetooth every day, so I'm quite familiar with its characteristics. While it may or may not be possible to use it for, as you say, "LAN access," the fact remains that it is not well suited for computer-to-computer communication. AirPort is a good computer-to-computer technology, but a bad wireless peripheral technology. Bluetooth is just the opposite; it's a lousy computer-to-computer technology but a good wireless peripheral technology.
See how you're not being helpful here? One would assume that the submitter, when asking for ideas, was expecting people to think before making suggestions. Your posting about Bluetooth is right up there with, "Use cups and string, d00d!" It might be possible to do it your way, but it would be a bad idea.
I just got a laptop a few months ago. I don't remember seeing a single one WITHOUT ethernet in my shopping.
I hope you're right. A former coworker of mine bought a Compaq about nine months ago-- don't know the model number-- that came without Ethernet. I hope the various PC laptop makers have come to the realization by now that Ethernet is important enough to build in.
Why would they be using the 169.254 subnet? I thought it would be 192.168 or 172.mumblemumble or 10.x.x.x subnets?
If you set your computer to get its IP info from DHCP, and no DHCP server is available, the computer will fall back to a self-assigned IP address. To self-assign, the machine picks a random address in 169.254, sends out a broadcast packet-- ARP, I think-- to see if anybody else on the local segment is using that address, repeats if necessary, and finally assigns the address to itself. All self-assigned addresses are in the 169.254.0.0/16 network. This is covered by an RFC, but I'm too lazy to look up which one.
This is also, incidentally, one of the foundations of Rendezvous. Rendezvous (a.k.a. ZeroConf) adds something called the multicast DNS resolver, which allows computers with self-assigned link-local addresses to refer to each other by name. Computer A sends out a multicast DNS packet asking for the IP address of the computer named "foo.local." Computer B is named "foo.local," so it responds with its own self-assigned IP. Computer A now knows what Computer B's IP address is, so they can communicate.
Until all the world is Rendezvous, you'll need to ask your friend what his IP address is before you can FTP (or whatever) to his machine. But you don't have to worry about assigning IPs to your machines or anything silly like that.
to show how 733+ this guy and his buddy are
Um... no offense, but do you maybe mean "1337"?;-)
I presume this isn't a recent iBook, since all of the new ones, at least here in AU, have no IR port. Just wondering... do us Australians get a raw deal?
No... you're absolutely right. That brings up a great point. There's never been an IR port an any iBook. Maybe the submitter meant PowerBook instead; many PowerBooks, including the G4, have IR ports on them. (Although I'm not sure why.)
To a non-Mac person, the distinction between an iBook and a PowerBook might not be immediately obvious. Benefit of the doubt applies here, I think.
Uh... that was a pretty useless remark, skinfitz. Bluetooth is used for communication between devices, yes, but so is every other communication protocol. What matters is what sorts of devices act in each role of the communication. Bluetooth is suited for computer-to-peripheral communication. It's not well-suited to computer-to-computer communication....or LAN cable...
I've never seen a headset connected to a cell phone via a LAN cable.
Bluetooth is not meant to replace LAN technologies. It's mean to replace low-data-rate serial communication technologies. Don't try to squeeze it into a different role, particularly when they're a better wireless solution for that role.
The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear.
Which US Constitution are you talking about, exactly? The Constitution isn't that long a document, you know. You can read the whole thing in just a few minutes. This kind of ignorance of our country's most important document is embarrassing.
The word "war" is only found four times in the Constitution. Here, for your enjoyment, are all four references.
Article I, Section 8, clause 11: [Congress have have the power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
Article I, Section 10, clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article III, Section 3, clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So you're wrong. The US Constitution has no specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it says nothing about what will or won't happen when the war is over. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights or the other amendments, either, except to say (in Amendment 3) that soldiers shall not be quartered in private homes even in times of war, and (in Amendment 5) that nobody will be held to answer for a capital crime unless indicted by a Grand Jury, except in cases of military justice in times of war.
I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic; I'm just so fucking sick of uninformed people making a lot of noise about how this or that thing is unconstitutional without having actually read the Constitution. It makes me sad that so many people in our country can be so unfamiliar with its founding document.
Now, on the subject of a declaration of war, let's again consult the history books.
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
That should look familiar. If you cut out the whereas stuff, the meat is contained in this one sentence: The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan
If you examine S. J. Res. 46 (here), and cut out a lot of whereas stuff, the meat is contained in this one sentence: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Do these two pieces of legislation sound similar? They say basically the same thing: the President, in his role as Commander in Chief of the United States military forces, is authorized to apply those forces to achieve our goals. The only thing missing from S. J. Res. 46 is the word "war."
If the President decides to deploy our military forces against Iraq, in an effort to defend the security of the United States and to enforce United Nations resolutions, it will be a completely legal and Constitutional act.
No, no, no. Bluetooth is not a computer-to-computer network technology. Bluetooth devices have to be paired before they can be used together, and once paired, they can be used at any time without authentication. Think of Bluetooth as a computer-to-peripheral technology. Anyplace you'd use a serial cable, or a USB cable, or a parallel cable, you can-- at least in principle-- use Bluetooth.
What this guy really needs is good old AirPort wireless networking. He said his friend has an iBook; any iBook can take an Apple AirPort card (MSRP $99), and they're take about three minutes to install. PCMCIA cards for PC laptops are also available, but I haven't a clue what they cost. Setting up a computer-to-computer network is the easiest thing in Mac OS 9 or OS X. Once established, the Windows machine should be able to sign on, but you never know for sure with those wacky third-party AirPort cards.
Of course, if the laptops in question were capable of this, he probably wouldn't be asking the question. The AirPort answer is just too obvious.
Furthermore, since he's talking about one Mac laptop and one PC laptop, chances are fair that Ethernet isn't an option. (All reasonably modern Mac laptops have Ethernet, but even today a lot of PC laptops don't. Which amazes me, but that's another conversation.)
To Stuee: If both computers do, by luck, have Ethernet, just carry a crossover cable with you. It's easy and lightweight. And you don't have to "build a small network" to use it, unless you count plugging the cable in as building a small network. At most, you'll have to ask the other guy for his IP address-- if you're using FTP or some such. It'll be in the 169.254 subnet. You are using self-assigned IP addressing on these little trips, right? It makes life easy.
And if the Mac laptop is reasonably recent, you don't even need a crossover cable. I forget exactly when it happened, but recent Apple laptops have auto-sensing MDX ports on them, which means you can go computer-to-hub or computer-to-computer with a regular Ethernet cable.
I know the you said you were looking for workarounds "other than cables," but if you can't use AirPort, an Ethernet cable is the way to go.
Never been in a courtroom, huh? No, they're not contradictions. Attorneys do appeal to emotion, but the degree to which they're allowed to do so is limited by the law. (The attorneys can't say anything that's "prejudicial," in other words, something that's too emotionally appealing. That sort of thing, if not caught in trial, can result in remanding or even overturning of the case at appeal.) Meanwhile, the jury is continually instructed to ignore the emotional aspects of the case and just focus on the cold facts, except where it's appropriate to consider something like extenuating circumstances or state of mind.
The US judicial system is an adversarial system, which means the courtroom is an arena where the prosecution and defense try to fight it out. It's up to the judge to make sure nobody punches below the belt, but within those limits, the two sides can do anything they like. At the end of the day, the jury makes their decision based on the law and the facts as presented.
If I have copyrighted materials on my computer (and since copyright is automatic in the US, I do.) and then someone tells you how to break into my computer, they have violated the DMCA.
That's wrong. The law defines an "access control device" as a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work." [1201(a)(3)(B), p. 553] That doesn't mean anything that stands between you and somebody else's copyrighted works is an access control device; that definition would be unreasonably broad and would never be applied in court. The question becomes whether the system or device in question-- the "technological measure"-- is intended to control access to a work, or whether it incidentally controls access. If it incidentally controls access, it's not an access control device. So circumventing it is not prima facie illegal under the DMCA.
You do realize, don't you, that very few ailments are actually caused by bacteria? And in most cases, bacterial infection, when it occurs, is secondary to a larger problem. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer... none of these have anything at all to do with microbiology. Liver disease. Chronic kidney disease. Tumors, both malignant and benign. Hernias. Appendicitis. Cholecystitis. Pancreatitis. Strokes. Obstructive pulmonary diseases. Alzheimer's. Even traumas. The list goes on and on.
Microbiology is all well and good. But it's not helpful in the vast majority of cases, because most diseases that afflict the body aren't caused by infection. And we're not talking about a 60/40 ratio here or anything like that. The vast majority of ailments are not caused by infection, and are not treated with antibiotics.
The U.S.courts of law are more concerned with grand displays than simple facts.
Well, that's not really true either. US courts of law-- as opposed to what you see on the evening news-- are very much concerned with simple facts. Attorneys appeal to emotion; that's part of their job, to persuade the jury. But when all is said and done, the decision is based on the facts of the case. This is how things are supposed to work, on papers, and it's also how they work in real life.
If I spank my kid in public, the DA (District Attorney) will go back to my H.S. classmates and former employers....
Even the most incompetent defense attorney will never let that sort of thing get into evidence. That's character evidence, and it's only permitted under certain narrow circumstances.
If the character of the defendant is in question, character testimony can be entered into the record, but prosecutors don't have a free hand to say anything they want during the trial. If you're on trial for embezzling a million dollars, the prosecution would be able to introduce evidence that you were convicted of embezzling before, because it establishes your character as a person who is not opposed to embezzling on moral grounds. But they couldn't put your ex-girlfriend on the stand for her to say, "Um... yeah, he lost that job, cause... like... he was stealin' staplers an' shit." That's not permitted in any court, for any reason.
Listen, no offense, but your comment is pretty damn long, and I haven't spent any time thinking about this subject in days and days. So I'm just gonna skim, okay? Seriously, no offense intended.
...most of the things we're discussing here, LaTeX, XML, etc, were specifically designed for authors...
That doesn't sound right to me. LaTeX is a typesetting system, not an authoring system. The distinction is subtle, but important. I've had many jobs in my life-- mostly 'cause I have a short attention span and I keep getting fired-- and along the way I've been a typesetter, a programmer, and most recently an author. Putting on my typesetter hat, LaTeX rocks. It's a fantastic typesetting system, all praise be to Knuth and Lamport. But as an author, it's definitely not optimal. If I want to italicize a word-- something authors do a lot-- I have to type {\it whatever}. That's not author-friendly. XML is far worse. XML, in my author opinion, isn't really meant to be human-readable. It gets in the way of the words, and as an author, words are all that count, you know?
So LaTeX and XML are really awful systems for authors. With all the tools at my disposal, I still find myself using Microsoft Word with a very narrow set of predefined styles for creating structured documents.
...everyone is familiar with HTML...
See, the thing is, this simply isn't true. Technical writers-- that's what we're talking about here-- come from two basic camps. They're either technology people who become writers, or they're writers who write technology stuff to pay their bills while they work on the great American novel on weekends. Programmers and geeks-- I use the term reflexively and affectionately-- are familiar with HTML. Writers aren't, and don't particularly want to be. Asking people who just want to write to scatter XML markup through their documents is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes time and it annoys the pig.
...there are numerous XML editors available...
If you're going to have your writer or writers using a tool anyway, why not just let them use the one they're already familiar with? Why try to force a new one down their throats just because it produces XML?
And while we're on the subject, don't bother taking your XML documents to a printer to get typeset and published. The print world-- actual ink on paper stuff-- cares about traditional stylesheets, from Word or Quark or FrameMaker, not XML.
...the individual authors may very well not be the best person to make these decisions.
Agreed. But guys from the IT department sure as hell aren't qualified to make the call, either. Compromises will have to be made, and that involves getting input and feedback from your people rather than simply dictating to them.
Look, let's talk about the real world here. In the vast majority of cases, technical writing goes from the writer to page layout to the printer. In many cases, the process of printing the documents might be supplemented-- or even completely replaced-- by the creation of PDFs, but the process is the same. Writer to page layout to printer.
Most page layout gets done in one of three pieces of software: QuarkXPress, Adobe FrameMaker, or Adobe InDesign. If the page layout is done with FrameMaker, then the best thing is for the documents to have been written with FrameMaker. This is fine, because FrameMaker is a good tool for writers. Most writers at least know it exists-- unlike LaTeX or XML-- and if they're not familiar with it, they can learn their way around it in minutes thanks to the familiar UI-- unlike LaTeX or XML. But FrameMaker is falling out of favor in many circles, replaced by either QuarkXPress or InDesign. In either of those pieces of software, the layout artist has to import text documents provided by writers and flow them through design templates. Layout artists like their jobs to be easy; the best possible scenario is if the documents provided by the writers can drop right in, and arrange and format themselves based on previously designed stylesheets. Can you do that with XML? No. Can you do it with LaTeX? No. Can you do it with Microsoft Word? Hell, yeah, easy as pie. So which tool is the best for the job in that situation?
Now, there are exceptions to this rule. Until recently, one major UNIX systems vendor I worked with still produced all their documentation using troff on UNIX workstations. I don't know what tools O'Reilly uses for layout, but I understand that theirs is an all-UNIX workflow as well. Of course, O'Reilly prefers that its authors submit Word or FrameMaker files, so that just goes to prove my point.
It's late, and I'm tired. Let me just wrap this up by saying this: go find a technical writer. Explain to her (most of the writers I know are women; this may or may not be typical) that you want her to do all of her writing using LaTeX or XML from now on. Explain to her what this means. After you get out the hospital, come tell me how it went. I'll be interested to hear.
You know, it occurs to me that this product is going to be used in basically the same situations as QuikClot and other similar clotting agents. (QuikClot is a mineral-based agent that's in use by the military; a Google search will reveal all, if you're so inclined.)
The thing about agents like QuikClot and MPH is that they're not really that useful in catastrophic traumas. Blood loss due to superficial injuries is almost always controllable in the field; in the worse case, in which a patient has suffered lots and lots of minor injuries, the blood loss is sufficiently slow that the risk of hypovolemic shock is almost nil.
The real danger in trauma situations comes when an artery is damaged or severed. Clotting agents like these won't help in those cases. You don't stop an artery from pumping by clotting. You stop it by clamping the shit out of the little fucker until you can get it tied off or anastomosed.
So in those cases where blood loss is really life-threatening, these sorts of substances won't help. I'm sure they've got valid medical uses, but they seem more like band-aids or bactine than a real life-saving medical tool.
Just my two cents. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on tee vee.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to ruin a perfectly good story, but what you saw was probably "DOUBLE PANIC."
If an SGI box kernel panics, it does exactly what you described, printing the message "KERNEL PANIC" at the top of the textport and spewing out lots of stack traces after it.
Now, kernel panics are, of course, handled by a handler. (Those panic messages don't happen by magic, you know.) If, on the off chance, your machine should panic, and then panic again inside the panic handler-- apart from meaning something is really, really wrong-- the system prints the message "DOUBLE PANIC" on the screen.
That's probably what you saw. I've seen this many times-- always due to faulty hardware.
Of course, I wouldn't put it past SGI to put a joke in their panic messages. This is, of course, the company that warned users in its workstation owner's guide not to "dangle the mouse by its cable or throw mouse at co-workers."
And there's always the ever-popular audiopanel -spinaltap gag. Running audiopanel with the -spinaltap flag makes the VU meters go to 11. Naturally.
If that is the case, why the "F" (fighter) designation? Why not the proper "A" (attacker) label?
I do so hate to quote myself, but here goes:
Funny story about how the F-117A got its designation. During the late 70's and early 80's, a squadron of Soviet aircraft-- called the Red Squadron, obviously-- operated out of Groom Lake. The pilots of those aircraft used the designations YF-110 through YF-116 in their flight logs. The pilots on the Senior Trend program used the designation YF-117A, simply because it was next in the sequence. When Lockheed printed up the manuals for the first aircraft, they put "YF-117A" on the covers, and neither the government nor Lockheed wanted to pay to have 'em reprinted.
I can't say whether you're right about F-117A's first use in combat, but for the record, the aircraft entered active service in 1982 or 1983. In 1974, the Have Blue stealth technology demonstrator program was launched, and it culminated with the first flight of the Have Blue aircraft-- which was identical to the F-117A in most respects, apart from some differences in tail geometry-- in 1977. In '78, the F-117A went into active development under the code name Senior Trend. The first F-117A left the ground in 1981.
Funny story about how the F-117A got its designation. During the late 70's and early 80's, a squadron of Soviet aircraft-- called the Red Squadron, obviously-- operated out of Groom Lake. The pilots of those aircraft used the designations YF-110 through YF-116 in their flight logs. The pilots on the Senior Trend program used the designation YF-117A, simply because it was next in the sequence. When Lockheed printed up the manuals for the first aircraft, they put "YF-117A" on the covers, and neither the government nor Lockheed wanted to pay to have 'em reprinted.
In terms of stealth and air superiority, the F-22 (hell, even the ill-fated YF-23) would trounce the hell out of any F-117.
The F-22 is not as stealthy-- overall-- as the F-117. The F-22 is designed to be an air dominance fighter with features designed to minimize the radar cross section, but there are other features of the F-22 that contribute to its stealth character in indirect ways. The Raptor's AN/APG-77 radar, for instance, allows the F-22 to engage air targets are a greater range with better accuracy than ever before. This fact, combined with weapons like the AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided missile allow the pilot of an F-22 to identify and engage his enemy while still outside the enemy's effective radar range. The nickname for this capability is "first look, first shot, first kill."
The F-117, on the other hand, is a precision-strike fighter bomber, designed to penetrate high-threat airspaces and deliver attacks against hardened ground targets. The F-117 is much stealthier at low range and against ground-based radars than the F-22 is, and for obvious reasons.
Yes, in terms of air superiority, the F-22 trounces the F-117. That's because the F-117 is not meant to be an air superiority weapon. The Nighthawk is capable of carrying AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, but only for the purpose of eliminating enemy AWACS aircraft from a low-observable platform. The F-117 doesn't even carry a gun.
Ironically, though, the first person to post about the source of the stock photo was "obidonn," a user who didn't exist before Monday afternoon and who hasn't posted anything since. "Keen-eyed," yes, but hardly a "regular."
Who is this "obidonn?" I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that he or she was an insider.
Considering that the earlier Mac OS didn't support Virtual Memory, I suspect Mac users didn't know this sound.
Bzzt. Mac OS has supported virtual memory since version 7, I believe.
the original poster specifically said he didnt want to connect them via networking
No, the submitter said he didn't want to have to "build a small network," and that he wanted alternatives "other than cables." Using AirPort and self-assigned IP addresses, you don't have to "build a small network." For that matter, you don't have to "build a small network" if you use a crossover cable, unless you count plugging the cable in.
I stand by my original choice.
You can stand by whatever you like. I've already explained why you're wrong. Just to drive the point home: making two laptops-- one Mac, one Windows-- interoperate in the way you describe, with Bluetooth, is even more difficult than using IR between them. AirPort, on the other hand, is specifically designed to do what the submitter wants to do. Exchanging files over Bluetooth-- with what, XModem?-- is like carving roast beef with a screwdriver.
I'm done with you. If you want the last word here, be my guest.
I hate to sound cynical, but I wonder how many people who read this actually knew what the USS Constitution was? I'll bet at least one moderator thought you were making a wisecrack about civil liberties.
What a world, what a world.
Ellen? Is that you?
Whether you like it or not, Bluetooth CAN be used for LAN access. I'm not saying it's better or worse than any other technology (802.11b for example) merely that it CAN be used for LAN access.
I use Bluetooth every day, so I'm quite familiar with its characteristics. While it may or may not be possible to use it for, as you say, "LAN access," the fact remains that it is not well suited for computer-to-computer communication. AirPort is a good computer-to-computer technology, but a bad wireless peripheral technology. Bluetooth is just the opposite; it's a lousy computer-to-computer technology but a good wireless peripheral technology.
See how you're not being helpful here? One would assume that the submitter, when asking for ideas, was expecting people to think before making suggestions. Your posting about Bluetooth is right up there with, "Use cups and string, d00d!" It might be possible to do it your way, but it would be a bad idea.
I just got a laptop a few months ago. I don't remember seeing a single one WITHOUT ethernet in my shopping.
;-)
I hope you're right. A former coworker of mine bought a Compaq about nine months ago-- don't know the model number-- that came without Ethernet. I hope the various PC laptop makers have come to the realization by now that Ethernet is important enough to build in.
Why would they be using the 169.254 subnet? I thought it would be 192.168 or 172.mumblemumble or 10.x.x.x subnets?
If you set your computer to get its IP info from DHCP, and no DHCP server is available, the computer will fall back to a self-assigned IP address. To self-assign, the machine picks a random address in 169.254, sends out a broadcast packet-- ARP, I think-- to see if anybody else on the local segment is using that address, repeats if necessary, and finally assigns the address to itself. All self-assigned addresses are in the 169.254.0.0/16 network. This is covered by an RFC, but I'm too lazy to look up which one.
This is also, incidentally, one of the foundations of Rendezvous. Rendezvous (a.k.a. ZeroConf) adds something called the multicast DNS resolver, which allows computers with self-assigned link-local addresses to refer to each other by name. Computer A sends out a multicast DNS packet asking for the IP address of the computer named "foo.local." Computer B is named "foo.local," so it responds with its own self-assigned IP. Computer A now knows what Computer B's IP address is, so they can communicate.
Until all the world is Rendezvous, you'll need to ask your friend what his IP address is before you can FTP (or whatever) to his machine. But you don't have to worry about assigning IPs to your machines or anything silly like that.
to show how 733+ this guy and his buddy are
Um... no offense, but do you maybe mean "1337"?
I presume this isn't a recent iBook, since all of the new ones, at least here in AU, have no IR port. Just wondering... do us Australians get a raw deal?
No... you're absolutely right. That brings up a great point. There's never been an IR port an any iBook. Maybe the submitter meant PowerBook instead; many PowerBooks, including the G4, have IR ports on them. (Although I'm not sure why.)
To a non-Mac person, the distinction between an iBook and a PowerBook might not be immediately obvious. Benefit of the doubt applies here, I think.
It's a device to device wireless technology
...or LAN cable...
Uh... that was a pretty useless remark, skinfitz. Bluetooth is used for communication between devices, yes, but so is every other communication protocol. What matters is what sorts of devices act in each role of the communication. Bluetooth is suited for computer-to-peripheral communication. It's not well-suited to computer-to-computer communication.
I've never seen a headset connected to a cell phone via a LAN cable.
Bluetooth is not meant to replace LAN technologies. It's mean to replace low-data-rate serial communication technologies. Don't try to squeeze it into a different role, particularly when they're a better wireless solution for that role.
The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear.
Which US Constitution are you talking about, exactly? The Constitution isn't that long a document, you know. You can read the whole thing in just a few minutes. This kind of ignorance of our country's most important document is embarrassing.
The word "war" is only found four times in the Constitution. Here, for your enjoyment, are all four references.
Article I, Section 8, clause 11: [Congress have have the power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
Article I, Section 10, clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article III, Section 3, clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
So you're wrong. The US Constitution has no specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it says nothing about what will or won't happen when the war is over. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights or the other amendments, either, except to say (in Amendment 3) that soldiers shall not be quartered in private homes even in times of war, and (in Amendment 5) that nobody will be held to answer for a capital crime unless indicted by a Grand Jury, except in cases of military justice in times of war.
I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic; I'm just so fucking sick of uninformed people making a lot of noise about how this or that thing is unconstitutional without having actually read the Constitution. It makes me sad that so many people in our country can be so unfamiliar with its founding document.
Now, on the subject of a declaration of war, let's again consult the history books.
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
That should look familiar. If you cut out the whereas stuff, the meat is contained in this one sentence: The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan
If you examine S. J. Res. 46 (here), and cut out a lot of whereas stuff, the meat is contained in this one sentence: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Do these two pieces of legislation sound similar? They say basically the same thing: the President, in his role as Commander in Chief of the United States military forces, is authorized to apply those forces to achieve our goals. The only thing missing from S. J. Res. 46 is the word "war."
If the President decides to deploy our military forces against Iraq, in an effort to defend the security of the United States and to enforce United Nations resolutions, it will be a completely legal and Constitutional act.
No, no, no. Bluetooth is not a computer-to-computer network technology. Bluetooth devices have to be paired before they can be used together, and once paired, they can be used at any time without authentication. Think of Bluetooth as a computer-to-peripheral technology. Anyplace you'd use a serial cable, or a USB cable, or a parallel cable, you can-- at least in principle-- use Bluetooth.
What this guy really needs is good old AirPort wireless networking. He said his friend has an iBook; any iBook can take an Apple AirPort card (MSRP $99), and they're take about three minutes to install. PCMCIA cards for PC laptops are also available, but I haven't a clue what they cost. Setting up a computer-to-computer network is the easiest thing in Mac OS 9 or OS X. Once established, the Windows machine should be able to sign on, but you never know for sure with those wacky third-party AirPort cards.
Of course, if the laptops in question were capable of this, he probably wouldn't be asking the question. The AirPort answer is just too obvious.
Furthermore, since he's talking about one Mac laptop and one PC laptop, chances are fair that Ethernet isn't an option. (All reasonably modern Mac laptops have Ethernet, but even today a lot of PC laptops don't. Which amazes me, but that's another conversation.)
To Stuee: If both computers do, by luck, have Ethernet, just carry a crossover cable with you. It's easy and lightweight. And you don't have to "build a small network" to use it, unless you count plugging the cable in as building a small network. At most, you'll have to ask the other guy for his IP address-- if you're using FTP or some such. It'll be in the 169.254 subnet. You are using self-assigned IP addressing on these little trips, right? It makes life easy.
And if the Mac laptop is reasonably recent, you don't even need a crossover cable. I forget exactly when it happened, but recent Apple laptops have auto-sensing MDX ports on them, which means you can go computer-to-hub or computer-to-computer with a regular Ethernet cable.
I know the you said you were looking for workarounds "other than cables," but if you can't use AirPort, an Ethernet cable is the way to go.
Never been in a courtroom, huh? No, they're not contradictions. Attorneys do appeal to emotion, but the degree to which they're allowed to do so is limited by the law. (The attorneys can't say anything that's "prejudicial," in other words, something that's too emotionally appealing. That sort of thing, if not caught in trial, can result in remanding or even overturning of the case at appeal.) Meanwhile, the jury is continually instructed to ignore the emotional aspects of the case and just focus on the cold facts, except where it's appropriate to consider something like extenuating circumstances or state of mind.
The US judicial system is an adversarial system, which means the courtroom is an arena where the prosecution and defense try to fight it out. It's up to the judge to make sure nobody punches below the belt, but within those limits, the two sides can do anything they like. At the end of the day, the jury makes their decision based on the law and the facts as presented.
If I have copyrighted materials on my computer (and since copyright is automatic in the US, I do.) and then someone tells you how to break into my computer, they have violated the DMCA.
That's wrong. The law defines an "access control device" as a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work." [1201(a)(3)(B), p. 553] That doesn't mean anything that stands between you and somebody else's copyrighted works is an access control device; that definition would be unreasonably broad and would never be applied in court. The question becomes whether the system or device in question-- the "technological measure"-- is intended to control access to a work, or whether it incidentally controls access. If it incidentally controls access, it's not an access control device. So circumventing it is not prima facie illegal under the DMCA.
You do realize, don't you, that very few ailments are actually caused by bacteria? And in most cases, bacterial infection, when it occurs, is secondary to a larger problem. Heart disease, diabetes, cancer... none of these have anything at all to do with microbiology. Liver disease. Chronic kidney disease. Tumors, both malignant and benign. Hernias. Appendicitis. Cholecystitis. Pancreatitis. Strokes. Obstructive pulmonary diseases. Alzheimer's. Even traumas. The list goes on and on.
Microbiology is all well and good. But it's not helpful in the vast majority of cases, because most diseases that afflict the body aren't caused by infection. And we're not talking about a 60/40 ratio here or anything like that. The vast majority of ailments are not caused by infection, and are not treated with antibiotics.
It's interesting that, of all the moderations applied to your comment, slashdot picks "Offtopic" as the one to display.
I'm not positive, but I believe that in cases of, oh, a 5-way tie, Slashdot shows the most recently applied moderation. I think.
The U.S.courts of law are more concerned with grand displays than simple facts.
Well, that's not really true either. US courts of law-- as opposed to what you see on the evening news-- are very much concerned with simple facts. Attorneys appeal to emotion; that's part of their job, to persuade the jury. But when all is said and done, the decision is based on the facts of the case. This is how things are supposed to work, on papers, and it's also how they work in real life.
If I spank my kid in public, the DA (District Attorney) will go back to my H.S. classmates and former employers....
Even the most incompetent defense attorney will never let that sort of thing get into evidence. That's character evidence, and it's only permitted under certain narrow circumstances.
If the character of the defendant is in question, character testimony can be entered into the record, but prosecutors don't have a free hand to say anything they want during the trial. If you're on trial for embezzling a million dollars, the prosecution would be able to introduce evidence that you were convicted of embezzling before, because it establishes your character as a person who is not opposed to embezzling on moral grounds. But they couldn't put your ex-girlfriend on the stand for her to say, "Um... yeah, he lost that job, cause... like... he was stealin' staplers an' shit." That's not permitted in any court, for any reason.
Doing it like this is just prudent.
Actually, doing it like this is just an embarrassing stunt performed in an effort to get media attention.
I say keep software out of politics and vice versa.
(Goodbye, karma. It was nice knowing you.)
Damn, this cracks me up! Look:
;-)
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Flamebait=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=1, Funny=1, Total=5.
Talk about not being able to make up your minds....
Listen, no offense, but your comment is pretty damn long, and I haven't spent any time thinking about this subject in days and days. So I'm just gonna skim, okay? Seriously, no offense intended.
...most of the things we're discussing here, LaTeX, XML, etc, were specifically designed for authors...
...everyone is familiar with HTML...
...there are numerous XML editors available...
...the individual authors may very well not be the best person to make these decisions.
That doesn't sound right to me. LaTeX is a typesetting system, not an authoring system. The distinction is subtle, but important. I've had many jobs in my life-- mostly 'cause I have a short attention span and I keep getting fired-- and along the way I've been a typesetter, a programmer, and most recently an author. Putting on my typesetter hat, LaTeX rocks. It's a fantastic typesetting system, all praise be to Knuth and Lamport. But as an author, it's definitely not optimal. If I want to italicize a word-- something authors do a lot-- I have to type {\it whatever}. That's not author-friendly. XML is far worse. XML, in my author opinion, isn't really meant to be human-readable. It gets in the way of the words, and as an author, words are all that count, you know?
So LaTeX and XML are really awful systems for authors. With all the tools at my disposal, I still find myself using Microsoft Word with a very narrow set of predefined styles for creating structured documents.
See, the thing is, this simply isn't true. Technical writers-- that's what we're talking about here-- come from two basic camps. They're either technology people who become writers, or they're writers who write technology stuff to pay their bills while they work on the great American novel on weekends. Programmers and geeks-- I use the term reflexively and affectionately-- are familiar with HTML. Writers aren't, and don't particularly want to be. Asking people who just want to write to scatter XML markup through their documents is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes time and it annoys the pig.
If you're going to have your writer or writers using a tool anyway, why not just let them use the one they're already familiar with? Why try to force a new one down their throats just because it produces XML?
And while we're on the subject, don't bother taking your XML documents to a printer to get typeset and published. The print world-- actual ink on paper stuff-- cares about traditional stylesheets, from Word or Quark or FrameMaker, not XML.
Agreed. But guys from the IT department sure as hell aren't qualified to make the call, either. Compromises will have to be made, and that involves getting input and feedback from your people rather than simply dictating to them.
Look, let's talk about the real world here. In the vast majority of cases, technical writing goes from the writer to page layout to the printer. In many cases, the process of printing the documents might be supplemented-- or even completely replaced-- by the creation of PDFs, but the process is the same. Writer to page layout to printer.
Most page layout gets done in one of three pieces of software: QuarkXPress, Adobe FrameMaker, or Adobe InDesign. If the page layout is done with FrameMaker, then the best thing is for the documents to have been written with FrameMaker. This is fine, because FrameMaker is a good tool for writers. Most writers at least know it exists-- unlike LaTeX or XML-- and if they're not familiar with it, they can learn their way around it in minutes thanks to the familiar UI-- unlike LaTeX or XML. But FrameMaker is falling out of favor in many circles, replaced by either QuarkXPress or InDesign. In either of those pieces of software, the layout artist has to import text documents provided by writers and flow them through design templates. Layout artists like their jobs to be easy; the best possible scenario is if the documents provided by the writers can drop right in, and arrange and format themselves based on previously designed stylesheets. Can you do that with XML? No. Can you do it with LaTeX? No. Can you do it with Microsoft Word? Hell, yeah, easy as pie. So which tool is the best for the job in that situation?
Now, there are exceptions to this rule. Until recently, one major UNIX systems vendor I worked with still produced all their documentation using troff on UNIX workstations. I don't know what tools O'Reilly uses for layout, but I understand that theirs is an all-UNIX workflow as well. Of course, O'Reilly prefers that its authors submit Word or FrameMaker files, so that just goes to prove my point.
It's late, and I'm tired. Let me just wrap this up by saying this: go find a technical writer. Explain to her (most of the writers I know are women; this may or may not be typical) that you want her to do all of her writing using LaTeX or XML from now on. Explain to her what this means. After you get out the hospital, come tell me how it went. I'll be interested to hear.
You know, it occurs to me that this product is going to be used in basically the same situations as QuikClot and other similar clotting agents. (QuikClot is a mineral-based agent that's in use by the military; a Google search will reveal all, if you're so inclined.)
The thing about agents like QuikClot and MPH is that they're not really that useful in catastrophic traumas. Blood loss due to superficial injuries is almost always controllable in the field; in the worse case, in which a patient has suffered lots and lots of minor injuries, the blood loss is sufficiently slow that the risk of hypovolemic shock is almost nil.
The real danger in trauma situations comes when an artery is damaged or severed. Clotting agents like these won't help in those cases. You don't stop an artery from pumping by clotting. You stop it by clamping the shit out of the little fucker until you can get it tied off or anastomosed.
So in those cases where blood loss is really life-threatening, these sorts of substances won't help. I'm sure they've got valid medical uses, but they seem more like band-aids or bactine than a real life-saving medical tool.
Just my two cents. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on tee vee.