I normally don't expect references to Richard Dawkins out of a hack group.. However, I believe that EVERYONE should sit down with a copy of 'The Blind Watchmaker' once. I've forced it onto most of my friends over the years, and have yet to hear a complaint. Insightful and about as gripping as any book on the sciences can be. Full of well-honed arguments and real-world cases to illustrate them. You'll want to read 'The Selfish Gene', too. They're both in paperback and still in print, so snag a copy off Barnes & Noble. (I advocate the boycott of Amazon.com, and will until they stop all this obvious patent sillyness)
There is nothing really new about it; Tert and Quat controller support has been around since the 2.0 release (and earlier w/ a little hacking)and has been upped to six IDE channels in the 2.2.x. It's teriffic in certain situations, like mine. Needed to serve up 10+ CD's to a segment of workstations. Snagged a dozen 24x IDE CDROM drives from storage and bought four Promise PCI IDE controllers for $21.50 each. Only real downside was that I needed to make a custom plexiglas plate for the side of the case that now had twelve CDROM drives sticking out of it, and that I had to cram another pair of power supplies in. (note: Macintosh IIfx powersupplies are always a good thing to have around!) The commercial solution would have been $1600. Mine was $100 (including plexiglas, contact cement, beige spraypaint and the cut-off wheel I broke slicing up the case.
What the heck kind of hardware is in one of those blue boxes? They say '64-bit superscalar processor' and nought else. Are they Alpha? Sun Ultra? Or are they some 'special' Cobalt arch that isn't quite either?
If William Cohen had not been in on the discussion, I would have guessed our good General Shelton was not long for his rank. I am glad that our military finally admits to their deeds. Unfortunatly, I also think their lack of meaningful detail makes them look like a pair of script kiddies caught 'getadmin'ing a NT box in the school computer lab, uncomfortable and totally unfamiliar with what they have done.
A note to all foreign governments and companies: Grab a copy of *BSD or Linux, and secure it. Not only do you have to fear the local SK's; the US has formally entered the hack business. No longer can you count on the hacked box as some kind of sport; it may be Uncle Sam, stealing your production figures for dissemination to US companies or snagging important defense information.
On the lighter side of things, I'm going to give a call over to the USSC tomorrow and see if I can drum up a job. I've spent too much time hacking my own boxen and not getting paid.
As the proud owner of both Dvorak and Qwerty keyboards, I have read a bit on the subject. First, some history. The idea behind the Dvorak keyboard is that it assigns important keystrokes evenly between hands, and orients those keys most often used to the 'home' row. Qwerty keyboards were designed so that the stream of keystrokes was alternated between hands, so that the mechanical hammers on 19th century typewriters wouldn't clash together quite so often. Heres where the efficiency issue gets fuzzy; The Dvorak keyboard was designed to be efficient, but the Qwerty was efficient by mistake. It seems that the alternation of hands allows the brain and hands to get a jumpstart on the next key. The travel may be greater, but the hand is already there when the key needs to be pressed. Studies have shown that the two schemes show near identical results with 'new' typists. Also at issue is the time spent retooling the brain to accept the new keyboard; Back in the 1950's, the US government (they were hoping to save a buck on typists) conducted a study where some Qwerty typists were trained on Dvorak keyboards, and others were re-trained on Qwerty. While both groups showed improvement, the Qwerty re-trains improved more than their newly converted Dvorak brothers/sisters (have to be PC here). What it comes down to is the fact that you are activly trying to increase your speed, and not schluffing along. I'm sure your friend was trying quite hard to learn the Dvorak layout and show to himself that it was faster! That constitutes training, in a way. One last myth before I submit. Many people seem to think that Qwerty survived for all the wrong reasons. Qwerty keyboards were NOT the only ones available at the onset of typewriters, nor were they produced by the biggest company. Qwerty killed quite a few other keyboards (Hit IBM's patent search; there is an ingenious one laid out like an organ, with a key for each case of letter) and mostly won on merit. As for myself, a dual typist? My speed on the Qwerty is faster than on the Dvorak, but only slightly. I use the Qwerty layout much more, and suppose that is the reason for the edge. I was suprised to notice that every time I walked away faster from the Dvorak my speed on the Qwerty was also marginally better. I'd be interested to find out if your mate has also noted this.
I can see how some of the more zealous of us are going to perceive this as a threat to Linux. Simply, Linux is succeeding on Intel machines, and by pricing their entry level workstation competitivly with high end Intel boxen, they are striving to banish Linux to the true low-end of the spectrum. It isn't a threat. Linux runs there (on the Ultra boxen) too, and the owners of high end Intel haven't historically chosen Solaris-x86. Why then would they run Solaris on the cheap Ultras? Sun is just trying to make a buck on the hardware! If anything, all it means to us is that we can give UltraPenguin a try ON OUR OWN MACHINES!! Kewl!
Gee. I was stuck calling it the 586 until AMD released their 5x86, at which time most of the people I knew started calling it by the proper names, P54C and P54D. After a week of trying to say five-ex-eighty-six-one-thirty-three and laughing every damn time, I finally gave up and started referring to them as the AMD 133. (much more lyric, much like P54C-133 and P54D-233)
I looked all over the Intel press releases, and have yet to find a corporate sponsored pronunciation for the 'Itanium'. So here are a few of my suggestions.
1. Titanicium 2. Itty-bittium 3. Icantium 4. iWhackium 5. Inferorium 6. I'm sorry! 7. Yes, we are on something! 8. Merced
Frankly, I hope the pair of morons that thought putting SEVEN times the normal amount of Uranium in the processing batch die a horrible death from the radiation. Not only did they endanger themselves, but all of their co-workers and potentially 35,000 other people if there is indeed a continuing reaction! This is natural selection at its finest; Be a moron, get irradiated and die.
I would think Japan would be a little anxious over nuclear anything, after that little bang back in the forties. I sure would be.
I discover this site a while back; Someone posted it to a thread on 'mapping the internet'. While most of the images are startlingly beautiful, the other thing that struck me about the attempts to 'map' also looked organic. One would normally assume that a network would look, well, mechanical, but I saw no real mechanism behind them. Take the map of the Mbone: It could be mistaken for a 2-d rendering of, say, bacterial growth vectors. Mabye saying 'the internet has a life of its own' has a wee bit more validity than anyone thought...
Geezus. I must have been up WAY too late and drank way too much last night.. My head is foggy.. I sat staring at the 'Bug in Pentium' headline and froze.. For a few minutes, I thought y'all had done a flashback to '94. Think there's a correlation between the MS release schedule and Intel's bug schedule? There was the buggy 386-40 back in 88-89 when 3.1 came out, there was the P54D divide bug about when Win 95 was due to be released, and now the Xeon has gone screwy just in time for Win2K. There wasn't a chip failure for Windows 98 because it was nothing more than a relabelled copy of Win95.
Wintel conspiracy? Or is Intel atempting to undermine MS?
Well, it would get a little hard to self-manage. Tech people are usually tolerant of complexity, and I imagine quite a few of these arrangements could emerge. Unfortunatly, the longer the chain, the more links there are to break, and the larger the number of potentially dissatisfied people. In the case of N==3, I suppose it would come down to a matter of how 'hungry' each party is, and how close the relitive values are, but I don't see too much of an innate problem. I'm guessing that most participants would have flexible wants or multiple needs, eg 'I need a nice PCI soundcard and some memory', or 'I need some docs and some VB code'. If this is true, the system becomes practical and efficient with a relitivly small user base. I'm going to do a little bit of figurative guesstimation. Assume we are always trading hardware for services rendered. Further, assume that there are only twenty services and forty types of hardware. If each person wants two different bits of hardware and could potentially perform three different services, (or vice versa) the system hits a guaranteed 100% match rate with only 140 entries. At 2 and 2, 200 entries. 1 and 2 yields 400, while the most specific case garners 800. Eight hundred entries isn't that high a number, especially when every techie and his sibling wants a new toy, and unemployment is so terribly low that others pay through the nose for people they wouldn't consider hiring normally. (let alone competent people!) I realize that there may be HUNDREDS of each, and that some swaps may be service/service hardware/hardware, but I was only interested in the effect of specificity on feasibility anyway, and I'm not even going to contemplate anything more complex before morning. (Note to myself: Quit reading manuals and scientific papers. You are beginning to sound like one.)
I don't really think our Big Brother in Washington can have a whole lot to say about it. In the situation you gave, the government loses no money. Sales tax was paid when the gadget was purchased, and cannot be re-charged if I were to sell it to you. Also, the government does not recieve a smaller slice of income tax, because I purchased the gizmo with money earned and taxed. If you had not written the patch for me, I would have had to do it myself (at salary). Besides, how can the government actually expect to tax a non-contractual agreement between friends?;-)
If we were bartering great sums of effort, money is indeed the quickest and most efficient way of doing it. On a small scale, my experience has been that it works very well in everyones favour. Perception of value is why. J knows a little gunsmithing, and needs his shoes resoled. X can resole shoes, and he needs the stock on his Winchester replaced. To each, the service they provide the other from their skill pool is less valuable then the service they recieve, and the swap works well. For example, last month I needed a new power supply and some SDIMMS. I called a business acquaintance of mine, knowing he had a stripped out Sun Ultra 2 in the back room. I asked him if he needed any odd jobs done, and told him what I needed. He needed an extra hand in operations; They were doing a big round of compliance and one of their employees was on vacation. I offered to help out for a few hours in exchange for the parts. His department got caught up, I got my parts, he made his boss happy, and each of us invested far less effort and money than we would have otherwise. In his case, bringing in someone to help with the compliance tests would have cost him about $800; instead he got rid of some hardware that would have been eventually tossed. At my end of it, I got the parts for five hours of labor instead of forty.
e-barter.. Now that's a damn good idea... Need some program documentation written but you're cash-strapped? Trade off one of your used Alphas. Need a faster chip? Spend a few hours troubleshooting an intermittant network for someone with boxes full. Need someone to debug your latest failure? Trade off with the fellow that needs an opinion on his database trouble. I think this could actually catch on! It would definitly benefit those who need a little extra somthing this month (like a new Palm) but have neither the cash or ambition to find a second job, and it would reduce cash-strain on all parties. I also must note that it kind of follows a great ideal: Help your neighbor with what he need, and he will reciprocate.
Looks like/. is on the other side of the break from my location. This packet travelled all the way around the globe to get here. Anyway, there are only three possible companies responsible for this disaster. Cincinatti Gas and Electricity, Columbia Gas or East Ohio Gas. Each is equally likely, as Ohio has some sort of 'consumer choice' law that allows you to choose your provider (who is in turn responsible for your particular gas feed) My bet is on CG&E, as they seem to have the largest consumer base and the mose infrastructure under their control. When I figure out which one it is (I'm calling each now) I'll let you all know.. Let them feel the weight of/. .
Granted, your viewable surface may now be 30 inches diagonal, but you're stuck with whatever resolution the monitor supports. Trust me, 640x480 doesn't look any better on a 21' monitor, only larger. If you really want to upsize cheaply and don't want to waste that that Fresnel lens, move the monitor closer. Same effect, even less money. Use the lens to do more constructive things; here's a few ideas you might try.. Use the lens and a mirror to test your employers fire sprinklers. Slip the lens under the glass of your office copier. No one will able to figure out why their copies come out backwards and HUGE. Small animals and your fresnel. 'Nuf said. Read the fine print on your Microsoft end user license. The part about 'your soul' and 'eternal damnation' is especially interesting. Peel the paint of your pompous neighbors new BMW. Serves him right for making your 1982 Chrysler look bad. You can have hot coffee sans electricity. Use it to make eight foot high shadow puppets on your roommates wall at night. Sound effects are optional, depending on the scare level of the individual involved.
Windows 2000 Advanced Server, RC2 (beta 3). I installed on an Alpha first, only took an hour twenty. The first Intel install took almost three hours, and thrashed nicely for the last thirty minutes. It then died a cryptic death, and I had to restart. Second Intel install took two and a half hours, didn't thrash, and worked nicely!
Windows 2000 Advanced Server, RC2 (beta 3). I installed on an Alpha first, only took an hour twenty. The Intel install took almost three hours, and thrashed nicely for the last thirty minutes.
Having recently installed W2k, I can tell you that he does not exaggerate. I could have installed SuSe, every package, nine or ten times over in the span I waited for Win2k to tell me it couldn't complete the install. Instead, I drank two pots of coffee, recompiled my Linux kernel five times, wrote 1,000 lines of code, read the first four chapters of 'Linux Device Drivers', built a new box from spare parts, installed RH 5.2 on it, configured it, re-timed my Camaro, drove to the store for smokes, bled the brakes on said Camaro, washed my hands of the grease, checked my phone lines for noise, played a few games of Quake, ate lunch, ate dinner, watched Alien 3 on video, did some light housekeeping, and refreshed/. two hundred times. The sick part? I was installing it on a PIII from a local drive!
Yes, it is encrypted. If you'd like a copy of the key, you can get it at the local bookstore. Just ask for 'The 1999 American Heritage Dictionary of Simple English Words and Phrases'. It'll run you six or seven bucks US, so better save up your allowance!
It appears to be a system in which a processor is fed a sequence of instructions in a translated foreign set, and the results are held in cache until it can be ascertained that the entire stream of instructions will run without error, at which time the cache is released. They may be using this purely as a CISCRISC mechanism, or they may be planning a platform where the actual program code is 'broken' into chunks, and the processors might encounter exception if the granularity of the sets is off. They may even be planning a platform that does multi-arch emulation on a transparent hardware/microcode level, ala AS/400. Heck, they might be doing all three! They also give an allusion to making a cheap processor run code designed for a more expensive one, so perhaps they're planning to give Intel a run for their money.
I'm sorry, but that is the closest I can get to an answer with the available information.
I'm sorry ebay, but what you're doing is hard to make sense of and almost counter-intuitive to anyone with even a smattering of common sense. These auction search sites not only get you a wider audience for your auctions, the audience they give you is more likely to buy than someone meandering aimlessly through your behemoth of a site. Oh, yes; it is a behemoth. Slow, painful, approaching the experience normally associated with a cheese-grater to the forehead. I can understand you're concerned about these engines slowing down the experience of those directly viewing your site, through their incessant search crawl of your database. Unfortunatly, you're seeking a short term solution; what you really need is much more power. Until then, throw a few more Ultras into the mix and enjoy the extra business the search engines deliver to your door. Don't risk larger amounts of dubious revenue when one of these companies takes you up the lawsuit trail.
I agree that preemptive, noninteractive content filtering is pure evil, and has no place in a free society. However, I imagine 'Clotho' as an adaptive AI/user intelligence agent, and not as a pre-set, I-know-better-than-you 'God'. A tool to help me wade through the seas of information saturation, and nothing more. When I haven't shown any interest in Bolivian sugar-beets, or Hillary Clinton's campaign, I could care less if my filter cuts them out.
Slashdot Mirror
I normally don't expect references to Richard Dawkins out of a hack group.. However, I believe that EVERYONE should sit down with a copy of 'The Blind Watchmaker' once. I've forced it onto most of my friends over the years, and have yet to hear a complaint. Insightful and about as gripping as any book on the sciences can be. Full of well-honed arguments and real-world cases to illustrate them. You'll want to read 'The Selfish Gene', too. They're both in paperback and still in print, so snag a copy off Barnes & Noble.
(I advocate the boycott of Amazon.com, and will until they stop all this obvious patent sillyness)
There is nothing really new about it; Tert and Quat controller support has been around since the 2.0 release (and earlier w/ a little hacking)and has been upped to six IDE channels in the 2.2.x. It's teriffic in certain situations, like mine. Needed to serve up 10+ CD's to a segment of workstations. Snagged a dozen 24x IDE CDROM drives from storage and bought four Promise PCI IDE controllers for $21.50 each. Only real downside was that I needed to make a custom plexiglas plate for the side of the case that now had twelve CDROM drives sticking out of it, and that I had to cram another pair of power supplies in. (note: Macintosh IIfx powersupplies are always a good thing to have around!) The commercial solution would have been $1600. Mine was $100 (including plexiglas, contact cement, beige spraypaint and the cut-off wheel I broke slicing up the case.
You can moderate me 'Offtopic' and call me Alice.. But MIPS?? ROCK!!
Ah need me one of dem dere qubes!
But the $3.75 question is....
What the heck kind of hardware is in one of those blue boxes? They say '64-bit superscalar processor' and nought else. Are they Alpha? Sun Ultra? Or are they some 'special' Cobalt arch that isn't quite either?
If William Cohen had not been in on the discussion, I would have guessed our good General Shelton was not long for his rank. I am glad that our military finally admits to their deeds. Unfortunatly, I also think their lack of meaningful detail makes them look like a pair of script kiddies caught 'getadmin'ing a NT box in the school computer lab, uncomfortable and totally unfamiliar with what they have done.
A note to all foreign governments and companies: Grab a copy of *BSD or Linux, and secure it. Not only do you have to fear the local SK's; the US has formally entered the hack business. No longer can you count on the hacked box as some kind of sport; it may be Uncle Sam, stealing your production figures for dissemination to US companies or snagging important defense information.
On the lighter side of things, I'm going to give a call over to the USSC tomorrow and see if I can drum up a job. I've spent too much time hacking my own boxen and not getting paid.
As the proud owner of both Dvorak and Qwerty keyboards, I have read a bit on the subject. First, some history. The idea behind the Dvorak keyboard is that it assigns important keystrokes evenly between hands, and orients those keys most often used to the 'home' row. Qwerty keyboards were designed so that the stream of keystrokes was alternated between hands, so that the mechanical hammers on 19th century typewriters wouldn't clash together quite so often.
Heres where the efficiency issue gets fuzzy; The Dvorak keyboard was designed to be efficient, but the Qwerty was efficient by mistake. It seems that the alternation of hands allows the brain and hands to get a jumpstart on the next key. The travel may be greater, but the hand is already there when the key needs to be pressed. Studies have shown that the two schemes show near identical results with 'new' typists.
Also at issue is the time spent retooling the brain to accept the new keyboard; Back in the 1950's, the US government (they were hoping to save a buck on typists) conducted a study where some Qwerty typists were trained on Dvorak keyboards, and others were re-trained on Qwerty. While both groups showed improvement, the Qwerty re-trains improved more than their newly converted Dvorak brothers/sisters (have to be PC here). What it comes down to is the fact that you are activly trying to increase your speed, and not schluffing along. I'm sure your friend was trying quite hard to learn the Dvorak layout and show to himself that it was faster! That constitutes training, in a way.
One last myth before I submit. Many people seem to think that Qwerty survived for all the wrong reasons. Qwerty keyboards were NOT the only ones available at the onset of typewriters, nor were they produced by the biggest company. Qwerty killed quite a few other keyboards (Hit IBM's patent search; there is an ingenious one laid out like an organ, with a key for each case of letter) and mostly won on merit.
As for myself, a dual typist? My speed on the Qwerty is faster than on the Dvorak, but only slightly. I use the Qwerty layout much more, and suppose that is the reason for the edge. I was suprised to notice that every time I walked away faster from the Dvorak my speed on the Qwerty was also marginally better. I'd be interested to find out if your mate has also noted this.
I can see how some of the more zealous of us are going to perceive this as a threat to Linux. Simply, Linux is succeeding on Intel machines, and by pricing their entry level workstation competitivly with high end Intel boxen, they are striving to banish Linux to the true low-end of the spectrum.
It isn't a threat. Linux runs there (on the Ultra boxen) too, and the owners of high end Intel haven't historically chosen Solaris-x86. Why then would they run Solaris on the cheap Ultras? Sun is just trying to make a buck on the hardware!
If anything, all it means to us is that we can give UltraPenguin a try ON OUR OWN MACHINES!!
Kewl!
Gee. I was stuck calling it the 586 until AMD released their 5x86, at which time most of the people I knew started calling it by the proper names, P54C and P54D. After a week of trying to say five-ex-eighty-six-one-thirty-three and laughing every damn time, I finally gave up and started referring to them as the AMD 133. (much more lyric, much like P54C-133 and P54D-233)
I looked all over the Intel press releases, and have yet to find a corporate sponsored pronunciation for the 'Itanium'. So here are a few of my suggestions.
1. Titanicium
2. Itty-bittium
3. Icantium
4. iWhackium
5. Inferorium
6. I'm sorry!
7. Yes, we are on something!
8. Merced
Frankly, I hope the pair of morons that thought putting SEVEN times the normal amount of Uranium in the processing batch die a horrible death from the radiation. Not only did they endanger themselves, but all of their co-workers and potentially 35,000 other people if there is indeed a continuing reaction! This is natural selection at its finest; Be a moron, get irradiated and die.
I would think Japan would be a little anxious over nuclear anything, after that little bang back in the forties. I sure would be.
I discover this site a while back; Someone posted it to a thread on 'mapping the internet'. While most of the images are startlingly beautiful, the other thing that struck me about the attempts to 'map' also looked organic. One would normally assume that a network would look, well, mechanical, but I saw no real mechanism behind them. Take the map of the Mbone: It could be mistaken for a 2-d rendering of, say, bacterial growth vectors. Mabye saying 'the internet has a life of its own' has a wee bit more validity than anyone thought...
Geezus. I must have been up WAY too late and drank way too much last night.. My head is foggy.. I sat staring at the 'Bug in Pentium' headline and froze.. For a few minutes, I thought y'all had done a flashback to '94.
Think there's a correlation between the MS release schedule and Intel's bug schedule? There was the buggy 386-40 back in 88-89 when 3.1 came out, there was the P54D divide bug about when Win 95 was due to be released, and now the Xeon has gone screwy just in time for Win2K. There wasn't a chip failure for Windows 98 because it was nothing more than a relabelled copy of Win95.
Wintel conspiracy? Or is Intel atempting to undermine MS?
Well, it would get a little hard to self-manage. Tech people are usually tolerant of complexity, and I imagine quite a few of these arrangements could emerge. Unfortunatly, the longer the chain, the more links there are to break, and the larger the number of potentially dissatisfied people. In the case of N==3, I suppose it would come down to a matter of how 'hungry' each party is, and how close the relitive values are, but I don't see too much of an innate problem.
I'm guessing that most participants would have flexible wants or multiple needs, eg 'I need a nice PCI soundcard and some memory', or 'I need some docs and some VB code'. If this is true, the system becomes practical and efficient with a relitivly small user base.
I'm going to do a little bit of figurative guesstimation. Assume we are always trading hardware for services rendered. Further, assume that there are only twenty services and forty types of hardware. If each person wants two different bits of hardware and could potentially perform three different services, (or vice versa) the system hits a guaranteed 100% match rate with only 140 entries. At 2 and 2, 200 entries. 1 and 2 yields 400, while the most specific case garners 800. Eight hundred entries isn't that high a number, especially when every techie and his sibling wants a new toy, and unemployment is so terribly low that others pay through the nose for people they wouldn't consider hiring normally. (let alone competent people!)
I realize that there may be HUNDREDS of each, and that some swaps may be service/service hardware/hardware, but I was only interested in the effect of specificity on feasibility anyway, and I'm not even going to contemplate anything more complex before morning.
(Note to myself: Quit reading manuals and scientific papers. You are beginning to sound like one.)
I don't really think our Big Brother in Washington can have a whole lot to say about it. In the situation you gave, the government loses no money. Sales tax was paid when the gadget was purchased, and cannot be re-charged if I were to sell it to you. Also, the government does not recieve a smaller slice of income tax, because I purchased the gizmo with money earned and taxed. If you had not written the patch for me, I would have had to do it myself (at salary). Besides, how can the government actually expect to tax a non-contractual agreement between friends? ;-)
If we were bartering great sums of effort, money is indeed the quickest and most efficient way of doing it. On a small scale, my experience has been that it works very well in everyones favour. Perception of value is why. J knows a little gunsmithing, and needs his shoes resoled. X can resole shoes, and he needs the stock on his Winchester replaced. To each, the service they provide the other from their skill pool is less valuable then the service they recieve, and the swap works well. For example, last month I needed a new power supply and some SDIMMS. I called a business acquaintance of mine, knowing he had a stripped out Sun Ultra 2 in the back room. I asked him if he needed any odd jobs done, and told him what I needed. He needed an extra hand in operations; They were doing a big round of compliance and one of their employees was on vacation. I offered to help out for a few hours in exchange for the parts. His department got caught up, I got my parts, he made his boss happy, and each of us invested far less effort and money than we would have otherwise. In his case, bringing in someone to help with the compliance tests would have cost him about $800; instead he got rid of some hardware that would have been eventually tossed. At my end of it, I got the parts for five hours of labor instead of forty.
e-barter.. Now that's a damn good idea...
Need some program documentation written but you're cash-strapped? Trade off one of your used Alphas.
Need a faster chip? Spend a few hours troubleshooting an intermittant network for someone with boxes full.
Need someone to debug your latest failure? Trade off with the fellow that needs an opinion on his database trouble.
I think this could actually catch on! It would definitly benefit those who need a little extra somthing this month (like a new Palm) but have neither the cash or ambition to find a second job, and it would reduce cash-strain on all parties.
I also must note that it kind of follows a great ideal: Help your neighbor with what he need, and he will reciprocate.
(thinks of implementing such a monster)
Looks like /. is on the other side of the break from my location. This packet travelled all the way around the globe to get here. Anyway, there are only three possible companies responsible for this disaster. Cincinatti Gas and Electricity, Columbia Gas or East Ohio Gas. Each is equally likely, as Ohio has some sort of 'consumer choice' law that allows you to choose your provider (who is in turn responsible for your particular gas feed) My bet is on CG&E, as they seem to have the largest consumer base and the mose infrastructure under their control. When I figure out which one it is (I'm calling each now) /. .
I'll let you all know.. Let them feel the weight of
Granted, your viewable surface may now be 30 inches diagonal, but you're stuck with whatever resolution the monitor supports. Trust me, 640x480 doesn't look any better on a 21' monitor, only larger. If you really want to upsize cheaply and don't want to waste that that Fresnel lens, move the monitor closer. Same effect, even less money. Use the lens to do more constructive things; here's a few ideas you might try..
Use the lens and a mirror to test your employers fire sprinklers.
Slip the lens under the glass of your office copier. No one will able to figure out why their copies come out backwards and HUGE.
Small animals and your fresnel. 'Nuf said.
Read the fine print on your Microsoft end user license. The part about 'your soul' and 'eternal damnation' is especially interesting.
Peel the paint of your pompous neighbors new BMW. Serves him right for making your 1982 Chrysler look bad.
You can have hot coffee sans electricity.
Use it to make eight foot high shadow puppets on your roommates wall at night. Sound effects are optional, depending on the scare level of the individual involved.
Did I miss any good ones?
Windows 2000 Advanced Server, RC2 (beta 3).
I installed on an Alpha first, only took an hour twenty. The first Intel install took almost three hours, and thrashed nicely for the last thirty minutes. It then died a cryptic death, and I had to restart. Second Intel install took two and a half hours, didn't thrash, and worked nicely!
Windows 2000 Advanced Server, RC2 (beta 3).
I installed on an Alpha first, only took an hour twenty. The Intel install took almost three hours, and thrashed nicely for the last thirty minutes.
Having recently installed W2k, I can tell you that he does not exaggerate. I could have installed SuSe, every package, nine or ten times over in the span I waited for Win2k to tell me it couldn't complete the install. Instead, I drank two pots of coffee, recompiled my Linux kernel five times, wrote 1,000 lines of code, read the first four chapters of 'Linux Device Drivers', built a new box from spare parts, installed RH 5.2 on it, configured it, re-timed my Camaro, drove to the store for smokes, bled the brakes on said Camaro, washed my hands of the grease, checked my phone lines for noise, played a few games of Quake, ate lunch, ate dinner, watched Alien 3 on video, did some light housekeeping, and refreshed /. two hundred times. The sick part? I was installing it on a PIII from a local drive!
Yes, it is encrypted. If you'd like a copy of the key, you can get it at the local bookstore. Just ask for 'The 1999 American Heritage Dictionary of Simple English Words and Phrases'. It'll run you six or seven bucks US, so better save up your allowance!
It appears to be a system in which a processor is fed a sequence of instructions in a translated foreign set, and the results are held in cache until it can be ascertained that the entire stream of instructions will run without error, at which time the cache is released. They may be using this purely as a CISCRISC mechanism, or they may be planning a platform where the actual program code is 'broken' into chunks, and the processors might encounter exception if the granularity of the sets is off. They may even be planning a platform that does multi-arch emulation on a transparent hardware/microcode level, ala AS/400. Heck, they might be doing all three! They also give an allusion to making a cheap processor run code designed for a more expensive one, so perhaps they're planning to give Intel a run for their money.
I'm sorry, but that is the closest I can get to an answer with the available information.
I'm sorry ebay, but what you're doing is hard to make sense of and almost counter-intuitive to anyone with even a smattering of common sense.
These auction search sites not only get you a wider audience for your auctions, the audience they give you is more likely to buy than someone meandering aimlessly through your behemoth of a site. Oh, yes; it is a behemoth. Slow, painful, approaching the experience normally associated with a cheese-grater to the forehead.
I can understand you're concerned about these engines slowing down the experience of those directly viewing your site, through their incessant search crawl of your database. Unfortunatly, you're seeking a short term solution; what you really need is much more power.
Until then, throw a few more Ultras into the mix and enjoy the extra business the search engines deliver to your door. Don't risk larger amounts of dubious revenue when one of these companies takes you up the lawsuit trail.
I agree that preemptive, noninteractive content filtering is pure evil, and has no place in a free society. However, I imagine 'Clotho' as an adaptive AI/user intelligence agent, and not as a pre-set, I-know-better-than-you 'God'. A tool to help me wade through the seas of information saturation, and nothing more. When I haven't shown any interest in Bolivian sugar-beets, or Hillary Clinton's campaign, I could care less if my filter cuts them out.