Yeesh... should have Previewed that before I Submitted.
Here it is again, demangled:
-----
Try hitting Ctrl-Alt-V. It will open up a tab that runs whatever page you are on through the W3C Markup Validation service. It's quite handy for checking your own pages for errors, or to find out just how badly someone else screwed up.:-D
Running the Slashdot front page through it gives me the following:
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser. Error Line 291 column 126: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here....ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
Error Line 291 column 126: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open....ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
The Validator found an end tag for the above element, but that element is not currently open. This is often caused by a leftover end tag from an element that was removed during editing, or by an implicitly closed element (if you have an error related to an element being used where it is not allowed, this is almost certainly the case). In the latter case this error will disappear as soon as you fix the original problem.
If this error occured in a script section of your document, you should probably read this FAQ entry.
Error Line 292 column 121: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here....ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
Error Line 292 column 121: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open....ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
Error Line 2091 column 443: end tag for element "STYLE" which is not open....n-right: 110px \!important; \}')}
Try hitting Ctrl-Alt-V.
It will open up a tab that runs whatever page you are on through the W3C Markup Validation service. It's quite handy for checking your own pages for errors, or to find out just how badly someone else screwed up.:-D
Running the Slashdot front page through it gives me the following:
Result: Failed validation, 5 errors
File: default.htm
Encoding: iso-8859-1
Doctype: HTML 4.01 Strict
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Error Line 291 column 126: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here....ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
Error Line 291 column 126: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open....ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
The Validator found an end tag for the above element, but that element is not currently open. This is often caused by a leftover end tag from an element that was removed during editing, or by an implicitly closed element (if you have an error related to an element being used where it is not allowed, this is almost certainly the case). In the latter case this error will disappear as soon as you fix the original problem.
If this error occured in a script section of your document, you should probably read this FAQ entry.
Error Line 292 column 121: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here....ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
Error Line 292 column 121: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open....ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
Error Line 2091 column 443: end tag for element "STYLE" which is not open....n-right: 110px \!important; \}')}
For shame, Slashdot, for shame!
The Wing Commander series started going downhill as soon as they switched to live action cut scenes. Wing Commander I and II (and their corresponding sets of expansion packs, "Secret Missions" and "Special Operations") as well as Privateer (but not the live-action Privateer 2) were awesome in that they had a compelling storyline and excellent game dynamics, but as soon as Chris Roberts started fancying himself to be a movie director instead of a game designer, the gameplay and storyline simultaneously went down the crapper.
The difference in gameplay was surprisingly dramatic. In the early games, fighting even small numbers of enemies was fairly challenging, and running like hell when things got too hot was a perfectly acceptable option (though doing it too often tended to affect the storyline in a way that would make things more difficult for you later; these games had several possible endings depending on which battles you won or lost in the course of the campaign). In the later games, the gameplay became more arcade-like, with your character going up against dozens of enemies on every single mission, and the plot became strictly linear; failing a single mission generally resulted in the game ending immediately.
In the end, I think Chris Roberts (and probably many others at Orion) simply fell in love with all the bells and whistles they were able to put into the later games as technology improved, causing them to forget about the reasons why people liked the Wing Commander games in the first place. It's a classic example of the eye candy vs. gameplay dilemma that affects many (if not most) major game companies nowadays.
Regarding TDS and CR sharing writers, Stephen Colbert is a writer for TDS (he's co-won 4 Emmy's for it), and Jon Stewart is the executive producer for the Colbert Report, so I should think there is quite a bit of "sharing" going on.
IANAL, but do you really think it's wise to be publicly commenting on ongoing litigation that you are involved in? That seems like it might sabotage your case.
The fundamental flaw with that platform is that it assumes that the threat of punishment is enough to deter the overwhelming majority of crimes. If Timmy the Gun-toting Meth Head goes out and kills two dozen people in a shopping mall because he's hopped up on goofballs and doesn't have a f*cking clue where he is or what he's doing, you can throw him in jail for a million years or even execute him, but that still doesn't bring back the people he killed.
On the other hand, if it's illegal or just even just inconvenient for Timmy to acquire a weapon, he might just decide it's not worth the trouble, and instead he'll just sit around in his room and harmlessly stare at the wall while he's stoned out of his mind.
I'm not saying the government should abolish all firearms, but there is something to be said for implementing a reasonable degree of regulation.
I can see a way that this could all work out to everyone's benefit, but Congress would need to be VERY careful in how they set it up to avoid abuse.
The basic problem the telcos are trying to solve is that of providing a guaranteed quality of service for certain applications (mainly video, but I can see how other applications could use it as well). To accomplish this, they want to build a separate, high-bandwidth network over which to route the time-sensitive traffic.
This could be done as follows. Each backbone provider that wishes to do so sets up a high-speed network in addition to their general purpose network. At the gateways, routing rules are set up such that traffic is routed through the high-speed network if and only if the following conditions are met:
- The QoS field is set to designate that high-speed service is requested. - The traffic is arriving via an adjacent ISP or peer network provider that has subscribed for high-speed service (and hasn't already used up all the bandwidth that they paid for). The source and destination of the traffic is ignored. All that matters is which "neighbor" of the high-speed provider the traffic arrived from.
An ISP or backbone provider that has subscribed for high-speed service is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate QoS flags are set for all traffic they deliver to the high-speed provider to ensure that their purchased high-speed bandwidth isn't wasted on traffic that doesn't need it (or was sent by a customer that hasn't subscribed for high-speed service). This may involve downgrading QoS at their own gateways if necessary.
Each high-speed "customer" would sign up for high-speed service with their respective ISP, who would purchase bandwidth from their backbone provider(s). Packets that the customer sends with the QoS flags set would be routed to the backbone provider with the QoS flags unchanged (or altered to fit the high-speed provider's specifications) and routed to the backbone provider, who would then route the traffic through their high-speed network to its destination's ISP. Data not flagged for QoS, or being sent by a customer that has not signed up for high-speed service (or has exceeded the bandwidth purchased), gets downgraded to standard service before being routed to the backbone.
In all cases, "customer" refers to an entity such as an Internet television station or other generator of time-sensitive content, and NOT a consumer. In general, traffic sent from a consumer to a content provider does not need high-speed service, and therefore can be sent via the general purpose network (not many cable TV watchers send video back to the cable company, after all).
In this way, everyone wins. Consumers can get high-quality video over the Internet from providers that are willing to purchase premium service without the need for the entire Internet to be upgraded. The only technical caveats I can think of are that they ISP's and backbone providers would need to carefully manage how much high-speed bandwidth they purchase from other providers so that their own customers can have high-quality end-to-end connections regardless of whom they are connecting to (within reason), and that ISP's on the receiving ends of high-speed traffic could find themselves overwhelmed if their consumers start receiving content from high-speed providers (even if said ISP's didn't purchase high-speed bandwidth themselves, since it's the content providers and not consumers that are signing up for service from their ISP's!).
There are, of course, a few gotchas:
- Pricing needs to be done fairly so that everyone pays the same price for a given amount of bandwidth. No predatory pricing, price gouging, or revenge price hikes (or denying service to a competitor). Most of these things are illegal anyway, but enforcement needs to be strict. - Providers need to cooperate to some degree in how they handle the QoS and routing. - High-speed service providers really should avoid being content providers themselves to avoid the temptation to hike up the prices for their competitors in the content market.
There are probably a few other issues I'm not thinking of, but I think most of them can be worked out (at least in theory, anyway).
Exactly. I really can't stand people that get offended on behalf of other people they don't even know.
On a side note, I think "Retard" would be a perfectly acceptable name for a program if it involves changing the velocity of something. You only view it as a negative term because you only think of it in a negative context.
The C and N words are unacceptable just from common sense (and etiquette).
As someone that has been limping around on a sprained ankle (with a possible minor fracture), I do not take offense to being called a gimp. In every instance when I've heard the term used, either toward me or someone else, it has been with a mixture of symphathy and bemusement. I would go on, but the inanity of this conversation isn't worth my time. Just go back to depriving circus performers of their livelihood, since that sort of thing seems to be your area of expertise.
That's ridiculous. First of all, the most common definition of "gimp" is "someone who walks with a limp," whether they be permanently handicapped or just suffering from a temporary injury. It also has several completely unrelated meanings. Secondly, it's an ACRONYM, for God's sake! It stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, which is exactly what it is.
There are routers out there that will handle dialup connections. I haven't seen any wireless routers that do it, though. I had to set up a BARRICADE router, external Modem Blaster, and a Linksys wireless access point in my parents' house a few years back so that my dad, my brother, my sister, (on rare occasions, my mom) and I could simultaneously use the 56.6k (usually 33.6k) dialup connection that my parents (still) have (no cable or DSL available in their area). It was horrifically slow and unreliable, but it ended the War for Internet Access that had been going on previously.
Granted, your point about making things stupidly easy still stands, as does your point about price.
Not that I had any particular aspirations to work for Billy G's evil empire, but the job marked sucked, and a paycheck's a paycheck.
The first thing that struck me was that the interviewer was the most boring person I had ever met. He had no social skills whatsoever, and I more or less had to lead him along in the conversation.
He told me NOTHING about working for Microsoft. Instead, he picked random things on my resume (the things on it that were LEAST interesting to, no less) and endlessly asked pointless questions about them.
At the end of the interview, he gave me a pen and paper and told me to implement some meaningless function to do something silly with the characters in a string (I forget what the actually silly thing to do was). I found the pointlessness of the coding exactly annoying, but the fact that I had to do it with a pen and paper was infuriating. I mean really, who writes code with a pen and paper?! I spent most of my time crossing things out and/or drawing arrows to reorder things, and many of my implementation decisions were based on reducing the risk of me having to rewrite the thing because I needed to insert a few lines where there was no room left on the paper.
Afterwards, the interviewer told me that he had never seen the function implemented that way before, and I never heard from him again.
Did anyone else at first read that first word as "Easter" and not "Eastern?" For the life of me I couldn't figure out how I'd get the eggs into my printer.
All the red light cameras I've seen in the US take pictures from the rear of the car, as not all states require a frontside license plate.
IANAL, but I think the laws regarding red light cameras are written such that the owner of a car is responsible for any red lights it is driven through (excluding extenuating circumstances, e.g., the car was stolen).
Also, the cameras don't take any pictures unless the red light is run (i.e., there are no non-red-light-run pictures), though the authorities may throw out some of them if the quality is poor or the view of the license plate is obscured.
I have seen red light cameras malfunction. The usual symptom is you see a flash going off over and over while the light is green.;-)
My family got its first computer on Christmas 1986 (I was 6 years old, about to turn 7). It was an Apple IIc (complete with joystick, mouse, color monitor, color printer, and a whopping 128KB of RAM!) I explored every way to use (and break) every piece of software we owned. By the time I was 8, I had figured out how to escape out of the running software and bring up a BASIC prompt by hitting Ctrl-Reset, and from there I entertained myself for hours by trying different things in BASIC.
Around '92, we got our first IBM-clone. It was an Emerson 386SX with 1MB of RAM. For whatever reason, it came pre-installed with Turbo Pascal 5. Within a few months, I had taught myself Pascal and was writing DOS batch programs.
A few years later, we got a Pentium-60, and later my dad brought home a Pentium-90 that he had rescued from his office when it flooded.
I have two siblings. My brother is 1 1/2 years younger than I, and my sister is 7 years younger than I. My brother (now 23) and I (now 25) can both build a machine from scratch (he's a bit more savvy with the hardware details, and I'm better at managing software), and our sister, although less technically adept, has never needed to ask us for help with computer problems.
Our parents are another story. Our dad is able to install or uninstall his games well enough, but he isn't able to perform anything but the most rudimentary maintenence tasks. Our mom needs help just to get Word started up. All five of us have been exposed to computers for exactly the same amount of time. The only difference is that the adults were technophobes who disliked using anything with which they weren't already familiar, unlike the children, who were eager to "play" with and "explore" the computers at an early age.
Children, in general, are much less afraid to learn new things than adults, who are generally afraid of learning new things. Exposure to computers (or foreign languages, or basically anything else) at an early age greatly increases their chances of being comfortable with them in the long term (though it is possible for a strongly motivated adult to become just as fluent).
Re:Maybe some truth there
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Google = really good at a narrow range of things
Microsoft = half-assed at everything
On a side note, Googlefight shows Pam Anderson beating out Anna Nicole Smith by a narrow margin (5,820,000 results vs. 4,900,000 results).;-)
That's because Computing Services routinely checks public file shares for copyrighted materials. If they find you have copyrighted movies or music in a shared folder that is not password protected or has an easily guessable password (e.g., the machine name or the folder name), they ban your computer(s) from the network for no less than one year. I know someone that this happened to, and it sure sucked for him not to be able to access email or the Internet from his room.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a password-protected share and telling all your friends what the password is.
Then again, it's been almost two years since I graduated, so the policy might have changed since then.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeesh... should have Previewed that before I Submitted.
:-D
...ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
...ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
...ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
...ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
...n-right: 110px \!important; \}')}
Here it is again, demangled:
-----
Try hitting Ctrl-Alt-V. It will open up a tab that runs whatever page you are on through the W3C Markup Validation service. It's quite handy for checking your own pages for errors, or to find out just how badly someone else screwed up.
Running the Slashdot front page through it gives me the following:
Result: Failed validation, 5 errors
File: default.htm
Encoding: iso-8859-1
Doctype: HTML 4.01 Strict
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Error Line 291 column 126: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here.
Error Line 291 column 126: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open.
The Validator found an end tag for the above element, but that element is not currently open. This is often caused by a leftover end tag from an element that was removed during editing, or by an implicitly closed element (if you have an error related to an element being used where it is not allowed, this is almost certainly the case). In the latter case this error will disappear as soon as you fix the original problem.
If this error occured in a script section of your document, you should probably read this FAQ entry.
Error Line 292 column 121: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here.
Error Line 292 column 121: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open.
Error Line 2091 column 443: end tag for element "STYLE" which is not open.
For shame, Slashdot, for shame!
Try hitting Ctrl-Alt-V. It will open up a tab that runs whatever page you are on through the W3C Markup Validation service. It's quite handy for checking your own pages for errors, or to find out just how badly someone else screwed up. :-D
Running the Slashdot front page through it gives me the following:
Result: Failed validation, 5 errors
File: default.htm
Encoding: iso-8859-1
Doctype: HTML 4.01 Strict
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Error Line 291 column 126: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here. ...ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
Error Line 291 column 126: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open. ...ads/sidenav_sky.js?'+dfp_ord+'">');
The Validator found an end tag for the above element, but that element is not currently open. This is often caused by a leftover end tag from an element that was removed during editing, or by an implicitly closed element (if you have an error related to an element being used where it is not allowed, this is almost certainly the case). In the latter case this error will disappear as soon as you fix the original problem.
If this error occured in a script section of your document, you should probably read this FAQ entry.
Error Line 292 column 121: delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here. ...ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
Error Line 292 column 121: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open. ...ication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> ');
Error Line 2091 column 443: end tag for element "STYLE" which is not open. ...n-right: 110px \!important; \}')}
For shame, Slashdot, for shame!
The Wing Commander series started going downhill as soon as they switched to live action cut scenes. Wing Commander I and II (and their corresponding sets of expansion packs, "Secret Missions" and "Special Operations") as well as Privateer (but not the live-action Privateer 2) were awesome in that they had a compelling storyline and excellent game dynamics, but as soon as Chris Roberts started fancying himself to be a movie director instead of a game designer, the gameplay and storyline simultaneously went down the crapper.
The difference in gameplay was surprisingly dramatic. In the early games, fighting even small numbers of enemies was fairly challenging, and running like hell when things got too hot was a perfectly acceptable option (though doing it too often tended to affect the storyline in a way that would make things more difficult for you later; these games had several possible endings depending on which battles you won or lost in the course of the campaign). In the later games, the gameplay became more arcade-like, with your character going up against dozens of enemies on every single mission, and the plot became strictly linear; failing a single mission generally resulted in the game ending immediately.
In the end, I think Chris Roberts (and probably many others at Orion) simply fell in love with all the bells and whistles they were able to put into the later games as technology improved, causing them to forget about the reasons why people liked the Wing Commander games in the first place. It's a classic example of the eye candy vs. gameplay dilemma that affects many (if not most) major game companies nowadays.
Regarding TDS and CR sharing writers, Stephen Colbert is a writer for TDS (he's co-won 4 Emmy's for it), and Jon Stewart is the executive producer for the Colbert Report, so I should think there is quite a bit of "sharing" going on.
IANAL, but do you really think it's wise to be publicly commenting on ongoing litigation that you are involved in? That seems like it might sabotage your case.
Crime is so bad in my area of the UK I generally only leave the house with a credit card (which can be cancelled) and a lighter. (I'm a smoker)
:-D
Really? No cigarettes? Or are you lighting the credit card and smoking the fumes?
The fundamental flaw with that platform is that it assumes that the threat of punishment is enough to deter the overwhelming majority of crimes. If Timmy the Gun-toting Meth Head goes out and kills two dozen people in a shopping mall because he's hopped up on goofballs and doesn't have a f*cking clue where he is or what he's doing, you can throw him in jail for a million years or even execute him, but that still doesn't bring back the people he killed.
On the other hand, if it's illegal or just even just inconvenient for Timmy to acquire a weapon, he might just decide it's not worth the trouble, and instead he'll just sit around in his room and harmlessly stare at the wall while he's stoned out of his mind.
I'm not saying the government should abolish all firearms, but there is something to be said for implementing a reasonable degree of regulation.
I can see a way that this could all work out to everyone's benefit, but Congress would need to be VERY careful in how they set it up to avoid abuse.
The basic problem the telcos are trying to solve is that of providing a guaranteed quality of service for certain applications (mainly video, but I can see how other applications could use it as well). To accomplish this, they want to build a separate, high-bandwidth network over which to route the time-sensitive traffic.
This could be done as follows. Each backbone provider that wishes to do so sets up a high-speed network in addition to their general purpose network. At the gateways, routing rules are set up such that traffic is routed through the high-speed network if and only if the following conditions are met:
- The QoS field is set to designate that high-speed service is requested.
- The traffic is arriving via an adjacent ISP or peer network provider that has subscribed for high-speed service (and hasn't already used up all the bandwidth that they paid for). The source and destination of the traffic is ignored. All that matters is which "neighbor" of the high-speed provider the traffic arrived from.
An ISP or backbone provider that has subscribed for high-speed service is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate QoS flags are set for all traffic they deliver to the high-speed provider to ensure that their purchased high-speed bandwidth isn't wasted on traffic that doesn't need it (or was sent by a customer that hasn't subscribed for high-speed service). This may involve downgrading QoS at their own gateways if necessary.
Each high-speed "customer" would sign up for high-speed service with their respective ISP, who would purchase bandwidth from their backbone provider(s). Packets that the customer sends with the QoS flags set would be routed to the backbone provider with the QoS flags unchanged (or altered to fit the high-speed provider's specifications) and routed to the backbone provider, who would then route the traffic through their high-speed network to its destination's ISP. Data not flagged for QoS, or being sent by a customer that has not signed up for high-speed service (or has exceeded the bandwidth purchased), gets downgraded to standard service before being routed to the backbone.
In all cases, "customer" refers to an entity such as an Internet television station or other generator of time-sensitive content, and NOT a consumer. In general, traffic sent from a consumer to a content provider does not need high-speed service, and therefore can be sent via the general purpose network (not many cable TV watchers send video back to the cable company, after all).
In this way, everyone wins. Consumers can get high-quality video over the Internet from providers that are willing to purchase premium service without the need for the entire Internet to be upgraded. The only technical caveats I can think of are that they ISP's and backbone providers would need to carefully manage how much high-speed bandwidth they purchase from other providers so that their own customers can have high-quality end-to-end connections regardless of whom they are connecting to (within reason), and that ISP's on the receiving ends of high-speed traffic could find themselves overwhelmed if their consumers start receiving content from high-speed providers (even if said ISP's didn't purchase high-speed bandwidth themselves, since it's the content providers and not consumers that are signing up for service from their ISP's!).
There are, of course, a few gotchas:
- Pricing needs to be done fairly so that everyone pays the same price for a given amount of bandwidth. No predatory pricing, price gouging, or revenge price hikes (or denying service to a competitor). Most of these things are illegal anyway, but enforcement needs to be strict.
- Providers need to cooperate to some degree in how they handle the QoS and routing.
- High-speed service providers really should avoid being content providers themselves to avoid the temptation to hike up the prices for their competitors in the content market.
There are probably a few other issues I'm not thinking of, but I think most of them can be worked out (at least in theory, anyway).
Exactly. I really can't stand people that get offended on behalf of other people they don't even know.
On a side note, I think "Retard" would be a perfectly acceptable name for a program if it involves changing the velocity of something. You only view it as a negative term because you only think of it in a negative context.
The C and N words are unacceptable just from common sense (and etiquette).
As someone that has been limping around on a sprained ankle (with a possible minor fracture), I do not take offense to being called a gimp. In every instance when I've heard the term used, either toward me or someone else, it has been with a mixture of symphathy and bemusement. I would go on, but the inanity of this conversation isn't worth my time. Just go back to depriving circus performers of their livelihood, since that sort of thing seems to be your area of expertise.
That's ridiculous. First of all, the most common definition of "gimp" is "someone who walks with a limp," whether they be permanently handicapped or just suffering from a temporary injury. It also has several completely unrelated meanings. Secondly, it's an ACRONYM, for God's sake! It stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, which is exactly what it is.
You're absolutely right. The police should just shoot them with real guns. Bullets can tell the difference between rioters and peaceful demonstrators.
Giving your employees web access is rather pointless if you're going to block the entire web.
There are routers out there that will handle dialup connections. I haven't seen any wireless routers that do it, though. I had to set up a BARRICADE router, external Modem Blaster, and a Linksys wireless access point in my parents' house a few years back so that my dad, my brother, my sister, (on rare occasions, my mom) and I could simultaneously use the 56.6k (usually 33.6k) dialup connection that my parents (still) have (no cable or DSL available in their area). It was horrifically slow and unreliable, but it ended the War for Internet Access that had been going on previously.
Granted, your point about making things stupidly easy still stands, as does your point about price.
Not that I had any particular aspirations to work for Billy G's evil empire, but the job marked sucked, and a paycheck's a paycheck.
The first thing that struck me was that the interviewer was the most boring person I had ever met. He had no social skills whatsoever, and I more or less had to lead him along in the conversation.
He told me NOTHING about working for Microsoft. Instead, he picked random things on my resume (the things on it that were LEAST interesting to, no less) and endlessly asked pointless questions about them.
At the end of the interview, he gave me a pen and paper and told me to implement some meaningless function to do something silly with the characters in a string (I forget what the actually silly thing to do was). I found the pointlessness of the coding exactly annoying, but the fact that I had to do it with a pen and paper was infuriating. I mean really, who writes code with a pen and paper?! I spent most of my time crossing things out and/or drawing arrows to reorder things, and many of my implementation decisions were based on reducing the risk of me having to rewrite the thing because I needed to insert a few lines where there was no room left on the paper.
Afterwards, the interviewer told me that he had never seen the function implemented that way before, and I never heard from him again.
Did anyone else at first read that first word as "Easter" and not "Eastern?" For the life of me I couldn't figure out how I'd get the eggs into my printer.
Didn't Mr. Burns try something like this already?
Refer to two-part episode entitled, "Who shot Mr. Burns?"
Somebody obviously didn't get the joke.
Where'd you buy a $350 "new" computer?
All the red light cameras I've seen in the US take pictures from the rear of the car, as not all states require a frontside license plate.
;-)
IANAL, but I think the laws regarding red light cameras are written such that the owner of a car is responsible for any red lights it is driven through (excluding extenuating circumstances, e.g., the car was stolen).
Also, the cameras don't take any pictures unless the red light is run (i.e., there are no non-red-light-run pictures), though the authorities may throw out some of them if the quality is poor or the view of the license plate is obscured.
I have seen red light cameras malfunction. The usual symptom is you see a flash going off over and over while the light is green.
Actually, Kerry won Maryland.
You make a good point.
My family got its first computer on Christmas 1986 (I was 6 years old, about to turn 7). It was an Apple IIc (complete with joystick, mouse, color monitor, color printer, and a whopping 128KB of RAM!) I explored every way to use (and break) every piece of software we owned. By the time I was 8, I had figured out how to escape out of the running software and bring up a BASIC prompt by hitting Ctrl-Reset, and from there I entertained myself for hours by trying different things in BASIC.
Around '92, we got our first IBM-clone. It was an Emerson 386SX with 1MB of RAM. For whatever reason, it came pre-installed with Turbo Pascal 5. Within a few months, I had taught myself Pascal and was writing DOS batch programs.
A few years later, we got a Pentium-60, and later my dad brought home a Pentium-90 that he had rescued from his office when it flooded.
I have two siblings. My brother is 1 1/2 years younger than I, and my sister is 7 years younger than I. My brother (now 23) and I (now 25) can both build a machine from scratch (he's a bit more savvy with the hardware details, and I'm better at managing software), and our sister, although less technically adept, has never needed to ask us for help with computer problems.
Our parents are another story. Our dad is able to install or uninstall his games well enough, but he isn't able to perform anything but the most rudimentary maintenence tasks. Our mom needs help just to get Word started up. All five of us have been exposed to computers for exactly the same amount of time. The only difference is that the adults were technophobes who disliked using anything with which they weren't already familiar, unlike the children, who were eager to "play" with and "explore" the computers at an early age.
Children, in general, are much less afraid to learn new things than adults, who are generally afraid of learning new things. Exposure to computers (or foreign languages, or basically anything else) at an early age greatly increases their chances of being comfortable with them in the long term (though it is possible for a strongly motivated adult to become just as fluent).
Google = really good at a narrow range of things
Microsoft = half-assed at everything
On a side note, Googlefight shows Pam Anderson beating out Anna Nicole Smith by a narrow margin (5,820,000 results vs. 4,900,000 results). ;-)
That's because Computing Services routinely checks public file shares for copyrighted materials. If they find you have copyrighted movies or music in a shared folder that is not password protected or has an easily guessable password (e.g., the machine name or the folder name), they ban your computer(s) from the network for no less than one year. I know someone that this happened to, and it sure sucked for him not to be able to access email or the Internet from his room.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a password-protected share and telling all your friends what the password is.
Then again, it's been almost two years since I graduated, so the policy might have changed since then.
Great idea! Now I know how I'll determine my new password for each of the next few months. ;-)