Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X.
Yeah, isn't that basically the same interface that's in 2000, that's in 98, that's in NT, that's in 95? Except it has big pretty buttons. Ooo...
(So he's saying Windows 95's interface is superior to Mac OS X? Or that if 95 had large control buttons that are skinned, it would then be superior?)
It's also possible to use SidPlay2/w (gui), command-line SidPlay2? or the oldish SIDAMP plugin for WinAmp 2, or any other sid players, to listen to SID files (with a more or less accurate sound? I don't know. I've never heard a real C64 in my life.:)
Many "potential spammers" can, of course, just use their official clients. They could, if they wanted, take the time to send identical messages to people one at a time.
If they're only concerned about spammers, and third-party clients allow you to spam, they just need to implement some anti-spam measures on the server side of things (read: Block users from sending too many messages out in some intelligent manner or another), not block out many people who'd like to talk to others on their network but use a client they might trust or like more.
It sounds to me like they must not care about third party clients.. Why not simply tell the truth in their statement?
Wow, this is a very great feature VeriSign added to the firewall I use! Now I can fill up my DNS cache by going to nonexistant websites ending in ".com". They all resolve to 64.94.110.11 (sitefinder-idn.verisign.com), but sadly, Mozilla keeps timing out when trying to contact any of them. If I go directly to http://sitefinder-idn.verisign.com, I get a page informing me: "We didn't find: "sitefinder-idn.verisign.com" There is no Web site at this address." Thanks a lot, VeriSign!
Sign up? Let's not. With all their outlandish, spammer-like claims on their webpage, they probably just sell your email address to everyone else that's already signed up, as well as their other friends.;)
First, here's how I do it: Have two NTFS partitions, say, D: and E:. Let's say I already have a 768mb pagefile on D. I set a 768mb pagefile on E, clear the pagefile size from D:. Click ok. Message telling me I'll have to reboot for changes to take effect. Don't reboot.
Then I change my mind for some reason. I clear the pagefile size for E:, and set a 768mb pagefile on D:.
Blue screen! "NTFS_FILESYSTEM" or something like that.
Then after rebooting, Windows happily tells me I have no virtual memory. I can log in as an administrator, but I haven't tried it as a normal user.
This reminds me of a large, space-wasting ad I saw earlier: "Your Computer Is Currently Broadcasting An Internet IP Address. With This Address, Someone Can Begin Attacking Your Computer!" That is terrible news! At least they had the decency to make the "titlebar" say "Advertisement" for a few seconds before it changed to "Security Alert", I never would have guessed.
It would be scary if that ad was from ComScore, though.
I wonder what their software's license agreement will look like, and what "form" their software will be in.
Trojan, piggybacking, or something else? Will they actually plain-english tell us "This program is going to keep track of the websites you visit and purchases you make."?
Then people would have to have telesurgery devices with them, and have the proper setups (and can trust that whoever online says they are a surgeon really is, or know someone who knows one), or have hospitals nearby that have telesurgery devices (but no surgeons on hand?).
While telesurgery could work, let us hope that no routers go down in the middle of it, and that nobody attacks the servers, and that the machines are sophisticated enough to allow the surgeon to work as well as he could in person.
I couldn't imagine a 28.8 shared over 2 machines, let alone 5. Especially with heavy downloads involved.
I use 56k dial-up, but my download speeds aren't even fast enough for myself.
It might work better to try using a vacuum cleaner, alcohol, and a joystick controller for spaceship parts; don't forget your helmet, and steer clear of Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X.
Yeah, isn't that basically the same interface that's in 2000, that's in 98, that's in NT, that's in 95? Except it has big pretty buttons. Ooo...
(So he's saying Windows 95's interface is superior to Mac OS X? Or that if 95 had large control buttons that are skinned, it would then be superior?)
Yes, those built-in ad blockers in those terrible free software programs, grr!!
It's also possible to use SidPlay2/w (gui), command-line SidPlay2? or the oldish SIDAMP plugin for WinAmp 2, or any other sid players, to listen to SID files (with a more or less accurate sound? I don't know. I've never heard a real C64 in my life. :)
There's also GoatTracker on http://covertbitops.c64.org/ 's Tools section, for creating your own sid tunes (open source, SDL, has Windows binary).
Who needs a bionic arm? Just use a flamethrower, or a smartgun. Or a robotic bigfoot-seeking catapult.
Many "potential spammers" can, of course, just use their official clients. They could, if they wanted, take the time to send identical messages to people one at a time.
If they're only concerned about spammers, and third-party clients allow you to spam, they just need to implement some anti-spam measures on the server side of things (read: Block users from sending too many messages out in some intelligent manner or another), not block out many people who'd like to talk to others on their network but use a client they might trust or like more.
It sounds to me like they must not care about third party clients.. Why not simply tell the truth in their statement?
Wow, this is a very great feature VeriSign added to the firewall I use!
Now I can fill up my DNS cache by going to nonexistant websites ending in ".com". They all resolve to 64.94.110.11 (sitefinder-idn.verisign.com), but sadly, Mozilla keeps timing out when trying to contact any of them.
If I go directly to http://sitefinder-idn.verisign.com, I get a page informing me:
"We didn't find: "sitefinder-idn.verisign.com"
There is no Web site at this address."
Thanks a lot, VeriSign!
Sign up? Let's not. ;)
With all their outlandish, spammer-like claims on their webpage, they probably just sell your email address to everyone else that's already signed up, as well as their other friends.
I thought they had eye-stalks and either one or two eyes, or they were wolves. You know? Yorps, gargs, and vorticons.
If he doesn't mind defaults, it's probably actually called "New Briefcase"
First, here's how I do it:
Have two NTFS partitions, say, D: and E:.
Let's say I already have a 768mb pagefile on D.
I set a 768mb pagefile on E, clear the pagefile size from D:. Click ok. Message telling me I'll have to reboot for changes to take effect. Don't reboot.
Then I change my mind for some reason. I clear the pagefile size for E:, and set a 768mb pagefile on D:.
Blue screen! "NTFS_FILESYSTEM" or something like that.
Then after rebooting, Windows happily tells me I have no virtual memory. I can log in as an administrator, but I haven't tried it as a normal user.
This reminds me of a large, space-wasting ad I saw earlier: "Your Computer Is Currently Broadcasting An Internet IP Address. With This Address, Someone Can Begin Attacking Your Computer!" That is terrible news! At least they had the decency to make the "titlebar" say "Advertisement" for a few seconds before it changed to "Security Alert", I never would have guessed.
It would be scary if that ad was from ComScore, though.
I wonder what their software's license agreement will look like, and what "form" their software will be in.
Trojan, piggybacking, or something else? Will they actually plain-english tell us "This program is going to keep track of the websites you visit and purchases you make."?
Ad infinitum.
Then people would have to have telesurgery devices with them, and have the proper setups (and can trust that whoever online says they are a surgeon really is, or know someone who knows one), or have hospitals nearby that have telesurgery devices (but no surgeons on hand?).
While telesurgery could work, let us hope that no routers go down in the middle of it, and that nobody attacks the servers, and that the machines are sophisticated enough to allow the surgeon to work as well as he could in person.
I couldn't imagine a 28.8 shared over 2 machines, let alone 5. Especially with heavy downloads involved.
I use 56k dial-up, but my download speeds aren't even fast enough for myself.
It might work better to try using a vacuum cleaner, alcohol, and a joystick controller for spaceship parts; don't forget your helmet, and steer clear of Mars.