Did you buy all your Linksys gear from the same place or at about the same time? Maybe you got a bad batch or something.
(I've personally had no experience with Linksys, but a friend of mine has had a simple Linksys router for several years now and it's still chugging away.)
You're probably right, but you should still RTFA. According to the article, these guys have spent millions of dollars making sure they get their temperature measurements just right and there's still some heat that (they claim) can't be explained by any simple mechanism. Is their claim bogus? Probably. But how can we actually know unless someone rips apart their argument properly?
Why the hell doesn't MS just close off 135, 139, 445 and the other dangerous MS ports by default? At least it could close them by default for dial-up adapter interfaces since it's a good guess those aren't going to be on a LAN.
[McClane and Zeus are speeding through Central Park] Zeus: Are you aiming for these people? John McClane: No.
[Pauses] John McClane: Well, maybe that mime.
He didn't say "open *source" he said "Open *SCO*ource". I don't know what that means, but I suppose it's like Open Source from SCO's twisted M.C. Escher perspective... so it's probably fairly frightening.
the only thing that matters to the SAT test is your technical knowledge.
Oh come on. Are you trying to tell me the SAT has no reading comprehension section? (Btw, "reading comprehension" sorta kinda means "read-and-interpret". Since you were apparently only taught the "technical" side and missed out on the comprehension aspect, I thought I'd just tell you that part to make sure it was perfectly clear.:-P )
Dr. Spatola said,
"The people opposed see it dehumanizing the student's papers, putting them through some sort of mechanical, computerized system like the multiple choice tests. "
This is not really new. If we slice off five words from the beginning and end and s/student\'s papers/students/ we get:
dehumanizing the students, putting them through some sort of mechanical, computerized system
I believe the cops can arrest you for being on private property without permission. Unless of course you own the property or there's some other good explanation: like if you're renting the property or you're the child of a parent that owns or rents the property, etc.
That's what "trespassing" means. Of course, sometimes, on large private properties they explicity post "no tresspassing" signs just to make the point extra clear. Also, some of the more paranoid home owners have "beware of dog" signs and possibly "this house protected by ADT security" signs. Absense of one of those signs does not make it okay to waltz into someone's house without permission. It's still trespassing.
Am I the only person on Earth who thinks that the whole Sandman series is woefully, outrageously overrated?
Yes. Well, actually no, there are plenty of other people like you. But I'm not one of them. Besides, even if I were, I'd still like Sandman (see below).
Why are we still harping on Sandman, all these years later? Have we not yet grown out of our moody, pretentious, "they're graphic novels, goddammit!" Goth phase?
No, we haven't gotten out of our "Goth phase" because Death is such a hottie!:-)
Surprise! It's Yet Another Cross Compiler (but it's not a yacc):-P
Oh I don't know. Is this progress or not? I can't tell. One of the articles linked to says that code generation is not a symptom of bad design, but I'm reluctant to start using language two to write the code I originally intended to write in language one to be compiled an executed on computer A.
But then, on the other hand, we have yacc/bison and (f)?lex. These programs are used for generating C code for certain pieces of (or sometimes all of) a compiler. In a sense, this is the "code generation" that the book is talking about. This means that the idea proposed by the book is not wholey (bad sp) new and this increases the chance that the "code generation" idea is not indicative of a slippery slope into an evil hell of overcomplex code and languages.
So I ask again: Is this progress? I still can't tell.
But I wasn't saying I wanted someone else to click "I Agree". What I meant was that I don't believe stupid "I Agree" buttons to be truly, legally binding (I don't believe in shrink wrap licenses either) so I should be able to click them with impunity.
Of course, I do realize that what I believe and what the courts and lawyers believe might be at odds and that, in such a case, I'd probably be screwed. As I said in the subject line, I was just rambling.:-) Sort of thinking out loud.
But I wouldn't have really signed it. I would have merely clicked "I Agree". Of course, I guess "I Agree" already has some legal weight to back it up. Also, I think most TOSes say that "by clicking `I Agree'..." etc, but still. I always felt that, that might be one of the ways you could conetest a TOS or EULA in court.
With your mention of "Yoggoth" and your insinuation that five is not important, I discern that you must be from the Illuminati! I will not submit! I and my Legion of Dynamic Discord will defeat you and your shoggothes and all the rest!
I just need to read the next two books in the trilogy first. fnord
If DRMWorld gets bad enough, maybe people will go into the business of circumventing the security for people that have legitimately purchased something that's DRM-crippled. I realize this would technically be an illegal enterprise, but when the law becomes insane, these things happen.
Sometimes I write things in HTML as you describe. It gets messy when you get into tables though. Btw, I think you left a <tt> tag open. Or was that on purpose?
Slashdot Mirror
That is very odd. I have no good, plausible answer ready. (Unless maybe little kids are involved somehow.)
:-)
Perhaps you have gremlins.
I know that's a joke, and it's a good one, but isn't it also a contradiction?
This statement is false.
Did you buy all your Linksys gear from the same place or at about the same time? Maybe you got a bad batch or something.
(I've personally had no experience with Linksys, but a friend of mine has had a simple Linksys router for several years now and it's still chugging away.)
The title of this article, which was taken from the first article it links to, is biased in favor of cold fusion.
You're probably right, but you should still RTFA. According to the article, these guys have spent millions of dollars making sure they get their temperature measurements just right and there's still some heat that (they claim) can't be explained by any simple mechanism. Is their claim bogus? Probably. But how can we actually know unless someone rips apart their argument properly?
Why the hell doesn't MS just close off 135, 139, 445 and the other dangerous MS ports by default? At least it could close them by default for dial-up adapter interfaces since it's a good guess those aren't going to be on a LAN.
In the first place, I'm not sure I agree with that statement. If that argument were true, why wouldn't it apply to computers?
In the second place, even if that arguement were totally valid--the SAT is *timed*. So if it takes you longer, that could be bad.
I think we are using different definitions of "technical".
[ McClane and Zeus are speeding through Central Park]
Zeus: Are you aiming for these people?
John McClane: No.
[Pauses]
John McClane: Well, maybe that mime.
He didn't say "open *source" he said "Open *SCO*ource". I don't know what that means, but I suppose it's like Open Source from SCO's twisted M.C. Escher perspective... so it's probably fairly frightening.
Oh come on. Are you trying to tell me the SAT has no reading comprehension section? (Btw, "reading comprehension" sorta kinda means "read-and-interpret". Since you were apparently only taught the "technical" side and missed out on the comprehension aspect, I thought I'd just tell you that part to make sure it was perfectly clear. :-P )
This is not really new. If we slice off five words from the beginning and end and s/student\'s papers/students/ we get:
which defines the modern public school perfectly.
I believe the cops can arrest you for being on private property without permission. Unless of course you own the property or there's some other good explanation: like if you're renting the property or you're the child of a parent that owns or rents the property, etc.
That's what "trespassing" means. Of course, sometimes, on large private properties they explicity post "no tresspassing" signs just to make the point extra clear. Also, some of the more paranoid home owners have "beware of dog" signs and possibly "this house protected by ADT security" signs. Absense of one of those signs does not make it okay to waltz into someone's house without permission. It's still trespassing.
Yeah, but what if they come after you and you don't defend yourself and you lose?
Yes. Well, actually no, there are plenty of other people like you. But I'm not one of them. Besides, even if I were, I'd still like Sandman (see below).
No, we haven't gotten out of our "Goth phase" because Death is such a hottie! :-)
She's even super-cali-fragil-expi-alidocious!
Surprise! It's Yet Another Cross Compiler (but it's not a yacc) :-P
Oh I don't know. Is this progress or not? I can't tell. One of the articles linked to says that code generation is not a symptom of bad design, but I'm reluctant to start using language two to write the code I originally intended to write in language one to be compiled an executed on computer A.
But then, on the other hand, we have yacc/bison and (f)?lex. These programs are used for generating C code for certain pieces of (or sometimes all of) a compiler. In a sense, this is the "code generation" that the book is talking about. This means that the idea proposed by the book is not wholey (bad sp) new and this increases the chance that the "code generation" idea is not indicative of a slippery slope into an evil hell of overcomplex code and languages.
So I ask again: Is this progress? I still can't tell.
But I wasn't saying I wanted someone else to click "I Agree". What I meant was that I don't believe stupid "I Agree" buttons to be truly, legally binding (I don't believe in shrink wrap licenses either) so I should be able to click them with impunity.
Of course, I do realize that what I believe and what the courts and lawyers believe might be at odds and that, in such a case, I'd probably be screwed. As I said in the subject line, I was just rambling. :-) Sort of thinking out loud.
But I wouldn't have really signed it. I would have merely clicked "I Agree". Of course, I guess "I Agree" already has some legal weight to back it up. Also, I think most TOSes say that "by clicking `I Agree'..." etc, but still. I always felt that, that might be one of the ways you could conetest a TOS or EULA in court.
Yeah, but there's no Krikkit (sp?) robots around here.
With your mention of "Yoggoth" and your insinuation that five is not important, I discern that you must be from the Illuminati! I will not submit! I and my Legion of Dynamic Discord will defeat you and your shoggothes and all the rest!
I just need to read the next two books in the trilogy first.
fnord
If DRMWorld gets bad enough, maybe people will go into the business of circumventing the security for people that have legitimately purchased something that's DRM-crippled. I realize this would technically be an illegal enterprise, but when the law becomes insane, these things happen.
Why aren't you? Surely you could qualify as a plain text browser at least?
Sometimes I write things in HTML as you describe. It gets messy when you get into tables though. Btw, I think you left a <tt> tag open. Or was that on purpose?
It's, just, the way, some of us, write. Gotta. Problem:
with;
that?
Well, since it's got two modems and Linux in it, you could use it to set up a two-line BBS. If line one is busy, your users can try line two.
whee
Just keep telling people that, then maybe they'll start to believe it. Oh wait--they already do... too bad it isn't actually true.