mechanic? just jump a wire from the starter to the distributor (or something like that -- don't really remember). I've done it before. works every time, really.
I have no idea why no one on the entirety of slashdot knows anything about networks. If I were to reply to every wrong post in this thread alone, I'd be here all fucking morning, so I'm just going to deal with this one.
DHCP is not implicit in any network topology. It may be modern and 'expected,' but, jesus christ, every time there's a network discussion on this site, DHCP is strewn all over it like shit on a truck stop toilet. Just because you were born in 1995 and have an "ADSL" connection that uses DHCP (well, it probably uses PPPoE now) doesn't mean you're qualified to say anything, and it certainly doesn't mean there aren't real networks that have never even heard of the silly little protocol.
That said, the initial DHCP request does go to a broadcast address, but it certainly has nothing to do with ARP. It goes to the global broadcast address (MAC: FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF). There's no such thing as an ARP address. ARP is a network layer protocol lying atop Ethernet (primarily; it isn't limited to Ethernet, of course). It is a MAC address you are thinking of.
Your use of commas is worse than your knowledge of low-level network protocols, really. I don't even know why I bother. Whoever mods this shit up, go fuck yourself. And whoever's out there that actually does know what they're talking about (surely there's someone else out of two million users), like I do, fuck you for not replying and setting these morons straight. It's a ridiculous place to read for technological discussion, anymore.
it's not an absurd thing to do. I don't understand why there are so many pseudonerd idiots on this site so quick on the gun with this drivel. anytime there's a fucking article about god damn fast internet transfer speeds, all you ever hear is something so ridiculous and unthoughtful as "OMG LOLOLOL BUT THE COMPUTER ISNT THAT FAST WTF!!!!." SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ A BOOK ABOUT NETWORKING OR ANYTHING, PLEASE.
that is NOT an original thought, and it's not even interesting. no one ever said anyone is going to be downloading anything to a single computer faster than that computer can write, even though it may have been implied in some shitty news article. you, on the other hand, trying to demonstrate your 'superior knowledge' (while, in fact, you're demonstrating your lack of it) is fucking retarded.
40Gbps is nowhere near the fastest memory speeds, either. have you ever even seen a modern ['consumer'] video card? their memory throughput is on the order of 100GB/s -- 20 times faster.
all cable modem systems I've ever seen are simply broadcast ethernet. that's nothing new, and it's pretty disgusting to see the way that their networks are setup even today.
Anecdotes don't prove anything, and I don't dispute that you've become "leaner" and "stronger" by working out. I don't think that remotely refutes anything I've said so far. The simple fact that you are working out and eating more is pretty simple to reconcile with what I've said: you are expending more calories, and, as a result, you are taking more in. Note that I never said you will gain weight if you stuff your face while actually using the energy from the food you consume. The fact of that matter is that most people don't have the genetics, motivation, or ability to sustain enough exercise (and metabolize) to account for this.
I'm not wrong about anything. I don't really give a shit about your stupid girlfriend, either, nerd.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you have probably been mislead by large food corporations (the McDonald's effect, again).
Most people may or may not be able to increase the amount of food they eat and lose "weight" (ideally people want to lose fat, and not weight, right?), but you need to provide evidence for that bologna before I'll believe it outright (I don't disagree that people can lose fat with a caloric surplus if they do LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of 20 minute+ cardiovascular exercise--inconceivable amounts).
Exercise is not the number one way to lose weight or fat. The only way to lose weight is by incurring a deficit of calories--taking in less calories than you expend. I think that's a pretty simple concept to grasp, atleast unless you're a fucking retard.
Exercise provides little in the way of actually creating this deficit. You can do the most grueling physical work for an hour and burn no more than 500 calories, and, unless you've got the genetics of a collegiate athlete (I'm assuming you do, since something compelled you to come up with this vitriolic crap), you're not going to get a six-pack figure. Not only do these calories not come from adipose tissue (they come from fats in the bloodstream), but the majority of calories you "burn" are from glycogen, and you need to endure cardiovascular exercise for atleast twenty minutes before this "fat burning" actually begins.
Furthermore, "good carbs and low fat proteins" is probably the dumbest line I've ever heard. Are you a spokesperson for Atkins? First of all, what the fuck is a good carbohydrate? We've got simple (largely sugars) and complex carbohydrates. Neither is particularly "good" or "bad" -- it is all relative, and, in terms of losing body weight and body fat, the only thing that matters is that you consume less of ANY type of caloric energy, no matter what source it comes from. And whatsoever, pray tell, do proteins have to do with fats? People who do lot's [sic] of sprinting exercise may well shed fat and gain muscle mass, but I don't think that's at all because they don't: 1) have really good genetics 2) know something about proper nutrition. This hardly refutes anything I've said before, provided you actually read it (the disclaimer about being a Lance Armstrong, in case you're clinically retarded).
Basketball players may or may not have lean muscular bodies and terrible eating habits. I don't know, but do you? Where are your statistics on this? First, it depends on which basketball players we're talking about, and how you know what their eating habits are. Are we talking about NBA All-Stars? If that's the case, you have to look at several things:
1) What do YOU (taking into account that you're a moron) consider to be terrible eating habits? Probably something like bacon and grease, right? Well, that has nothing to do with losing fat or weight, because:
2) How much of it are they eating? You can eat absolutely ANY food you want and lose fat and weight, so long as take in less calories than you consume. It is simple.
3) Assuming that your idiocy has somehow evaded my careful scrutiny to this point, and, perhaps, these unidentified basketball players ARE consuming enormous amounts of food for energy, I must ask: What is their goal? You say they are gaining muscle (which is also weight, mind you -- why do you say "weight" when you mean fat, but "muscle" when you mean muscle? oh, maybe because it makes your garbage sound more palatable). Of course they are. They are top athletes. They are working out, and they are taking in more calories than they consume. I'd think that sits pretty well with what I've said before, and makes quite perfect sense if you're neither thick nor a christian fundamentalist. They take in more food, and they gain weight. You take in more food, and you gain weight. Someone else takes in less food, and they lose weight. Wow, how fucking unbelievably novel. But All-Star NBA players have good genetics and actually get off their ass to break do
No. No, it isn't. Exercise? Hahahah. Exercise is utterly useless for losing body fat, unless you have the motivation and dedication (and balls) of Lance Armstrong. Congratulations, McDonald's Marketing (TM) has gotten to you quite well.
That's a shitty false dichotomy, and a horribly incorrect assumption at that. Yes, starving yourself does slow down your metabolism, but eating PROPERLY does not, and that's the only way to really lose fat (decrease your caloric intake by 150 or so calories, and gradually increase this deficit over time). You will not gain any fat 'back,' but one important thing to remember is that there is no 'back,' because DIET is not something that you do temporarily. It is a lifestyle change. You do not "go on" a diet and then "come back off of," necessarily.
No. You first start eating a healthy, normal amount (which, by nature, consists of zero or less soft drinks and alcohol, atleast in an ideal situation) to sustain your bodyweight. Most people are NOT doing this to begin with, hence why they are fat. Only THEN do you reduce your caloric intake in gradations, and when a normal, functioning weight is reached (which is quite low under the expectations of many Americans), you can return to a NORMAL, body-weight sustaining diet. You will not gain back any fat.
I used to think like you. I was a bit naive. that's the dreamer in my -- I must have had a John Lennon moment. the truth is that people really don't care whether their liberties are restricted, be it by government or corporation. there may be some critical mass beyond which point the populace will regret their apathy, but, if it does exist, it is so absurdly far beyond anything I could ever imagine, and it's wishful thinking to presume that it will be reached anytime soon; I've been feeling that way for years, and it certainly hasn't happened yet.
parallels can easily be drawn to terrorist networks like the muhjahadeen (I don't presume to know much about history or current world affairs, so please forgive me if I'm being more than extremely ignorant). osama bin laden, for instance, may be an evil man, and he may be going about things the wrong way -- I'm not sure -- but think of how terrible and he and many of his people must feel. we have been invading the middle east for decades, destroying their infrastracture and their countries, and I don't think I can begin to know what that must be like. we do this because we can do it, and because we have interests in these countries and their resources, but what do they have to repel our capricious malevolence? their only retort is terrorism. I'm not advocating terrorism, and I'm neither saying it's justified nor that all terrorism necessarily has any semblance of rationaltiy behind it, but you certainly can't deny there's a tinge of causality involved. the way I think of it, the islamic and arabic world is saying to us "you guys are evil, but we won't go out without a fight," and that's exactly what [they're -- and I mean that in the most respectful way possible] showing us.
they don't have the ability to wage war that we do, and they don't have the technology or economy that we do. I'm speaking on behalf (if I might try to extrapolate) not only of the united states, but ideally the largest west, in general. the only thing they can do is demonstrate their frustration and hope to gain some modicum of revenge against us, but at the same time, there's an ideology that coincides with the tactic: by attacking you, we will make you lose your freedoms, and, at some point, your people might realize the great loss they have suffered and rise up against you -- but this hasn't happened. what has happened? we re-elected george w. bush. that's what happened. I have little faith in humanity at this point, and I'm still being extremely unpragmatic if I even aspire to a society where such sentiments ring with any level of legitimacy.
I'm aware that the top raptor was limited to 10 m/s, but the comic says 3) that "raptors run at 10 m/s" which seems to contradict the first statement of their speed. are you saying raptors run more slowly indoors?
there seem to a couple of errors in that comic. the first is a factual error -- humans can run a lot faster than 13.5mph (well, I mean roughly 8mph by 'a lot'). the second is an inconsistency -- raptors have a maximum speed of 25 m/s, but later they're revealed to run at 10m/s. I assume, though (and concede the benefit of the doubt), that this is an averaged speed.
Believing blindly is just plain stupid, though. That's not faith.
yes, it is.
faith/fe/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
I like neither Pidgin Encrypt nor Pidgin OTR. Both are messy and limiting. You can't send large bodies of text with OTR, for instance. Out of band communication is best -- just run a VPN or ssh tunnel between you and whomever you wish to talk; it's better that way.
However, 'Despite the string of defeats, [sic] Marino Marcich, executive director of the Washington-based ODF Alliance, said the legislative fight has only begun.'
Slashdot Mirror
mechanic? just jump a wire from the starter to the distributor (or something like that -- don't really remember). I've done it before. works every time, really.
P.S. it's not like that at all.
HARIRIRIY DIIES? whoops. I forgot that some people (ancients) capitalize letters which aren't at the start of a sentence.
I have no idea why no one on the entirety of slashdot knows anything about networks. If I were to reply to every wrong post in this thread alone, I'd be here all fucking morning, so I'm just going to deal with this one.
DHCP is not implicit in any network topology. It may be modern and 'expected,' but, jesus christ, every time there's a network discussion on this site, DHCP is strewn all over it like shit on a truck stop toilet. Just because you were born in 1995 and have an "ADSL" connection that uses DHCP (well, it probably uses PPPoE now) doesn't mean you're qualified to say anything, and it certainly doesn't mean there aren't real networks that have never even heard of the silly little protocol.
That said, the initial DHCP request does go to a broadcast address, but it certainly has nothing to do with ARP. It goes to the global broadcast address (MAC: FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF). There's no such thing as an ARP address. ARP is a network layer protocol lying atop Ethernet (primarily; it isn't limited to Ethernet, of course). It is a MAC address you are thinking of.
Your use of commas is worse than your knowledge of low-level network protocols, really. I don't even know why I bother. Whoever mods this shit up, go fuck yourself. And whoever's out there that actually does know what they're talking about (surely there's someone else out of two million users), like I do, fuck you for not replying and setting these morons straight. It's a ridiculous place to read for technological discussion, anymore.
it's not an absurd thing to do. I don't understand why there are so many pseudonerd idiots on this site so quick on the gun with this drivel. anytime there's a fucking article about god damn fast internet transfer speeds, all you ever hear is something so ridiculous and unthoughtful as "OMG LOLOLOL BUT THE COMPUTER ISNT THAT FAST WTF!!!!." SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ A BOOK ABOUT NETWORKING OR ANYTHING, PLEASE. that is NOT an original thought, and it's not even interesting. no one ever said anyone is going to be downloading anything to a single computer faster than that computer can write, even though it may have been implied in some shitty news article. you, on the other hand, trying to demonstrate your 'superior knowledge' (while, in fact, you're demonstrating your lack of it) is fucking retarded. 40Gbps is nowhere near the fastest memory speeds, either. have you ever even seen a modern ['consumer'] video card? their memory throughput is on the order of 100GB/s -- 20 times faster.
all cable modem systems I've ever seen are simply broadcast ethernet. that's nothing new, and it's pretty disgusting to see the way that their networks are setup even today.
your dad is your girlfriend?
you only need to travel four light years for interstellar distance, actually.
my problem with that video was actually the comparisons to "Tatooine" and the "Death Star," but yeah.
that is impossible. I would never watch Shrek 3 or Shrek 4.
Anecdotes don't prove anything, and I don't dispute that you've become "leaner" and "stronger" by working out. I don't think that remotely refutes anything I've said so far. The simple fact that you are working out and eating more is pretty simple to reconcile with what I've said: you are expending more calories, and, as a result, you are taking more in. Note that I never said you will gain weight if you stuff your face while actually using the energy from the food you consume. The fact of that matter is that most people don't have the genetics, motivation, or ability to sustain enough exercise (and metabolize) to account for this. I'm not wrong about anything. I don't really give a shit about your stupid girlfriend, either, nerd.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you have probably been mislead by large food corporations (the McDonald's effect, again).
Most people may or may not be able to increase the amount of food they eat and lose "weight" (ideally people want to lose fat, and not weight, right?), but you need to provide evidence for that bologna before I'll believe it outright (I don't disagree that people can lose fat with a caloric surplus if they do LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of 20 minute+ cardiovascular exercise--inconceivable amounts).
Exercise is not the number one way to lose weight or fat. The only way to lose weight is by incurring a deficit of calories--taking in less calories than you expend. I think that's a pretty simple concept to grasp, atleast unless you're a fucking retard. Exercise provides little in the way of actually creating this deficit. You can do the most grueling physical work for an hour and burn no more than 500 calories, and, unless you've got the genetics of a collegiate athlete (I'm assuming you do, since something compelled you to come up with this vitriolic crap), you're not going to get a six-pack figure. Not only do these calories not come from adipose tissue (they come from fats in the bloodstream), but the majority of calories you "burn" are from glycogen, and you need to endure cardiovascular exercise for atleast twenty minutes before this "fat burning" actually begins.
Furthermore, "good carbs and low fat proteins" is probably the dumbest line I've ever heard. Are you a spokesperson for Atkins? First of all, what the fuck is a good carbohydrate? We've got simple (largely sugars) and complex carbohydrates. Neither is particularly "good" or "bad" -- it is all relative, and, in terms of losing body weight and body fat, the only thing that matters is that you consume less of ANY type of caloric energy, no matter what source it comes from. And whatsoever, pray tell, do proteins have to do with fats? People who do lot's [sic] of sprinting exercise may well shed fat and gain muscle mass, but I don't think that's at all because they don't: 1) have really good genetics 2) know something about proper nutrition. This hardly refutes anything I've said before, provided you actually read it (the disclaimer about being a Lance Armstrong, in case you're clinically retarded).
Basketball players may or may not have lean muscular bodies and terrible eating habits. I don't know, but do you? Where are your statistics on this? First, it depends on which basketball players we're talking about, and how you know what their eating habits are. Are we talking about NBA All-Stars? If that's the case, you have to look at several things:
1) What do YOU (taking into account that you're a moron) consider to be terrible eating habits? Probably something like bacon and grease, right? Well, that has nothing to do with losing fat or weight, because:
2) How much of it are they eating? You can eat absolutely ANY food you want and lose fat and weight, so long as take in less calories than you consume. It is simple.
3) Assuming that your idiocy has somehow evaded my careful scrutiny to this point, and, perhaps, these unidentified basketball players ARE consuming enormous amounts of food for energy, I must ask: What is their goal? You say they are gaining muscle (which is also weight, mind you -- why do you say "weight" when you mean fat, but "muscle" when you mean muscle? oh, maybe because it makes your garbage sound more palatable). Of course they are. They are top athletes. They are working out, and they are taking in more calories than they consume. I'd think that sits pretty well with what I've said before, and makes quite perfect sense if you're neither thick nor a christian fundamentalist. They take in more food, and they gain weight. You take in more food, and you gain weight. Someone else takes in less food, and they lose weight. Wow, how fucking unbelievably novel. But All-Star NBA players have good genetics and actually get off their ass to break do
which one? obama, giuliani, mccain, or clinton?
No. No, it isn't. Exercise? Hahahah. Exercise is utterly useless for losing body fat, unless you have the motivation and dedication (and balls) of Lance Armstrong. Congratulations, McDonald's Marketing (TM) has gotten to you quite well.
That's a shitty false dichotomy, and a horribly incorrect assumption at that. Yes, starving yourself does slow down your metabolism, but eating PROPERLY does not, and that's the only way to really lose fat (decrease your caloric intake by 150 or so calories, and gradually increase this deficit over time). You will not gain any fat 'back,' but one important thing to remember is that there is no 'back,' because DIET is not something that you do temporarily. It is a lifestyle change. You do not "go on" a diet and then "come back off of," necessarily.
No. You first start eating a healthy, normal amount (which, by nature, consists of zero or less soft drinks and alcohol, atleast in an ideal situation) to sustain your bodyweight. Most people are NOT doing this to begin with, hence why they are fat. Only THEN do you reduce your caloric intake in gradations, and when a normal, functioning weight is reached (which is quite low under the expectations of many Americans), you can return to a NORMAL, body-weight sustaining diet. You will not gain back any fat.
a socially acceptable manor: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Trec esson_-_moat_view.JPG
I used to think like you. I was a bit naive. that's the dreamer in my -- I must have had a John Lennon moment. the truth is that people really don't care whether their liberties are restricted, be it by government or corporation. there may be some critical mass beyond which point the populace will regret their apathy, but, if it does exist, it is so absurdly far beyond anything I could ever imagine, and it's wishful thinking to presume that it will be reached anytime soon; I've been feeling that way for years, and it certainly hasn't happened yet.
parallels can easily be drawn to terrorist networks like the muhjahadeen (I don't presume to know much about history or current world affairs, so please forgive me if I'm being more than extremely ignorant).
osama bin laden, for instance, may be an evil man, and he may be going about things the wrong way -- I'm not sure -- but think of how terrible and he and many of his people must feel. we have been invading the middle east for decades, destroying their infrastracture and their countries, and I don't think I can begin to know what that must be like. we do this because we can do it, and because we have interests in these countries and their resources, but what do they have to repel our capricious malevolence? their only retort is terrorism. I'm not advocating terrorism, and I'm neither saying it's justified nor that all terrorism necessarily has any semblance of rationaltiy behind it, but you certainly can't deny there's a tinge of causality involved. the way I think of it, the islamic and arabic world is saying to us "you guys are evil, but we won't go out without a fight," and that's exactly what [they're -- and I mean that in the most respectful way possible] showing us.
they don't have the ability to wage war that we do, and they don't have the technology or economy that we do. I'm speaking on behalf (if I might try to extrapolate) not only of the united states, but ideally the largest west, in general.
the only thing they can do is demonstrate their frustration and hope to gain some modicum of revenge against us, but at the same time, there's an ideology that coincides with the tactic: by attacking you, we will make you lose your freedoms, and, at some point, your people might realize the great loss they have suffered and rise up against you -- but this hasn't happened. what has happened? we re-elected george w. bush. that's what happened. I have little faith in humanity at this point, and I'm still being extremely unpragmatic if I even aspire to a society where such sentiments ring with any level of legitimacy.
I'm aware that the top raptor was limited to 10 m/s, but the comic says 3) that "raptors run at 10 m/s" which seems to contradict the first statement of their speed. are you saying raptors run more slowly indoors?
? you can't send a Host header with HTTP 1.0, and I don't really see what you're trying to do with the "127.0.0.1" crap.
there seem to a couple of errors in that comic. the first is a factual error -- humans can run a lot faster than 13.5mph (well, I mean roughly 8mph by 'a lot'). the second is an inconsistency -- raptors have a maximum speed of 25 m/s, but later they're revealed to run at 10m/s. I assume, though (and concede the benefit of the doubt), that this is an averaged speed.
faith
-noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
It'd be King James's. I don't know why this is so difficult for everyone.
I like neither Pidgin Encrypt nor Pidgin OTR. Both are messy and limiting. You can't send large bodies of text with OTR, for instance. Out of band communication is best -- just run a VPN or ssh tunnel between you and whomever you wish to talk; it's better that way.