And during the login proccess you (guess what) use the login database. And then you can (guess what again) use the info database and find out neat things about AIM users.
Actually IIRC the configuration is located in the system.ini and is not available in NT....
so the poor saps running win2k don't get to make thier screen of death purple and green or some other horrendous combination:)
Re:Not the same as video hardware
on
LinModems?
·
· Score: 1
My mboard that i'll (eventually) be putting in a backpack to make my wearable does that, w/ the side effect that it has i/o sound and video w/ the highest point on the whole system being the proccessor fan on the socket 7 proccessor.
But yeah its kinda annoying when there is a sticker that says 8 mb for the video card, when it just leaches off the main memory, but i RTFM'ed b4 i bought it
It wouldn't be a bummer, it would be an evil government conspiricy:)
or something
Re:Another spurious Star Trek reference
on
Beaming Money
·
· Score: 1
what they don't know is the world will come closer to ending when theres 31 0's (out of 32) at least on current systems, which i'm pretty sure will change my 2038 anyhow, linux alpha (probably sparc too) is allready y2038 compliant, maybe it will be the key to dethroning m$ although i hate to think of nearly 40 more years of microsoft 'inovention'
I think theres support for doing ident w/ masquerading, the ipmasq server will somehow check w/ the originating computer for the ident, I seem to recall this happening w/out any complex configuration the last time i used ipmasq (which was a while ago, so i don't remember where the option was)
Ummm recieving files by DCC requires that your system act as a client, when you sendout a send request it includes your ip and port, which i would assume the ipmasq irc would alter if its coming from inside.... and to know where to send the incomming connection from the reciever, i'm assuming from not actually having read the source to that module that it would take it from the source of the irc connection to the server.
If you're gonna tell people they're wrong, at least warn ppl that you might be, unless you're right.....
yeah win98 se's nat stuff seems to work for everything i've tried (admittedly just telneting and ftping, but hey) the only thing is the default network and netmask are nasty, 192.168.0.0 and 255.255.255.0, and as far as i can tell theres no nice pretty redmond approved way of changing that, but looking through the registry for ICS(internet connection sharing) finds the stuff you need to change, and it seemed pretty intuitive for me......
This probably sounds like a blantant microsoft advocacy post, but they have tricked me into using their software claiming the betas are at no cost (theres actually a integrity cost).
That new win98 second edition thing comes with 'internet connection sharing' which for all intents and purposes is IP masq with a dns server, although it wants to use the 192.168.0.0 subnet w/ a netmask of 255.255.255.0 but with some creative registry editing it can work for other configurations
>Modern society has, I'm sorry to say, shifted its focus FAR, FAR away from the *proper* upbringing of our children. And the *worse* group is *not* the Moralists...oh no. It is the group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that wants to remove sane limits because 'limits' in and of themselves are 'bad'.
> Are they? There are reasons why *children* should not be exposed to certain things, and they aren't that complicated: Children have limited experience. As adults it is *supposed to be* our job to allow them to grow long enough to have the *experience* to make good judgements.
The problem isn't the limits as such, its who is imposing them, every child is different, yet all the ones under 17 are (supposed to) be denied access to this film, why? Because a bunch of old people say so. If a large quantity of parents don't want their children seeing this, I have no problem with that, in fact based on what I've seen in reviews and TV episodes, I'd recommend that most parents not let their children see it, but to put that choice into the hands of a bunch of old ppl is ludicrous (sp?).
Slashdot Mirror
And during the login proccess you (guess what) use the login database. And then you can (guess what again) use the info database and find out neat things about AIM users.
Whats wrong w/ the Blair Witch Project?
As long as you stay until the 'all events depicted where not real and any relation is co-incidental' bit.....
If you take it as true, then its a problem.
Its been about 6 months ssince i last used one, but IIRC the sybex console switches have audio connectors.
don't have a url or an estimated price, but i think they're pretty darn expensive.
you have one part by your boxes, and then cables running out to your consoles, and you can even daisy chain them for support of more boxes
was pretty cool
(wow check out the lack of grammer on that)
the page is actually loading correctly w/ netscape 4 now
Actually IIRC the configuration is located in the system.ini and is not available in NT....
:)
so the poor saps running win2k don't get to make thier screen of death purple and green or some other horrendous combination
My mboard that i'll (eventually) be putting in a backpack to make my wearable does that, w/ the side effect that it has i/o sound and video w/ the highest point on the whole system being the proccessor fan on the socket 7 proccessor.
But yeah its kinda annoying when there is a sticker that says 8 mb for the video card, when it just leaches off the main memory, but i RTFM'ed b4 i bought it
It wouldn't be a bummer, it would be an evil government conspiricy :)
or something
what they don't know is the world will come closer to ending when theres 31 0's (out of 32) at least on current systems, which i'm pretty sure will change my 2038 anyhow, linux alpha (probably sparc too) is allready y2038 compliant, maybe it will be the key to dethroning m$
although i hate to think of nearly 40 more years of microsoft 'inovention'
I think theres support for doing ident w/ masquerading, the ipmasq server will somehow check w/ the originating computer for the ident, I seem to recall this happening w/out any complex configuration the last time i used ipmasq (which was a while ago, so i don't remember where the option was)
Use ssh, it should work great for that, and it will be encyrpted and depending on your settings compressed as well
Ummm recieving files by DCC requires that your system act as a client, when you sendout a send request it includes your ip and port, which i would assume the ipmasq irc would alter if its coming from inside.... and to know where to send the incomming connection from the reciever, i'm assuming from not actually having read the source to that module that it would take it from the source of the irc connection to the server.
If you're gonna tell people they're wrong, at least warn ppl that you might be, unless you're right.....
yeah win98 se's nat stuff seems to work for everything i've tried (admittedly just telneting and ftping, but hey) the only thing is the default network and netmask are nasty, 192.168.0.0 and 255.255.255.0, and as far as i can tell theres no nice pretty redmond approved way of changing that, but looking through the registry for ICS(internet connection sharing) finds the stuff you need to change, and it seemed pretty intuitive for me......
This probably sounds like a blantant microsoft advocacy post, but they have tricked me into using their software claiming the betas are at no cost (theres actually a integrity cost).
That new win98 second edition thing comes with 'internet connection sharing' which for all intents and purposes is IP masq with a dns server, although it wants to use the 192.168.0.0 subnet w/ a netmask of 255.255.255.0 but with some creative registry editing it can work for other configurations
>Modern society has, I'm sorry to say, shifted its focus FAR, FAR away from the *proper* upbringing of our children. And the *worse* group is *not* the Moralists...oh no. It is the group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that wants to remove sane limits because 'limits' in and of themselves are 'bad'.
> Are they? There are reasons why *children* should not be exposed to certain things, and they aren't that complicated: Children have limited experience. As adults it is *supposed to be* our job to allow them to grow long enough to have the *experience* to make good judgements.
The problem isn't the limits as such, its who is imposing them, every child is different, yet all the ones under 17 are (supposed to) be denied access to this film, why? Because a bunch of old people say so. If a large quantity of parents don't want their children seeing this, I have no problem with that, in fact based on what I've seen in reviews and TV episodes, I'd recommend that most parents not let their children see it, but to put that choice into the hands of a bunch of old ppl is ludicrous (sp?).
Sidenote: I'm 17