my new motherboard only has one IDE slot (I have no idea why), so I had to replace all my IDE drives with sata drives anyways.
I think you just answered your own question:)
They only give you one IDE channel because they're expecting you to put a [CD/DVD]-[ROM/RW] drive on it, and use SATA for HDDs. While some economy-line mobos still have two IDE channels (and maybe two or so SATA), most decent boards now are expecting that you'll use SATA for HDDs. (BTW... we both really should be saying PATA instead of IDE - SATA drives are still IDE drives).
For example - I just got an Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe +Wireless board, and it's only got one PATA channel, but has six SATAs, plus an internal and an external SATA connector on a separate controller chip.
You may be being forced to upgrade, but it won't bother you too much when PATA HDDs are totally phased out.
Some printers with multimedia-card slots (my Canon Pixma, for example) lock the card as read-only. You can change it in the printer's settings (not in software, but on the printer's hardware settings). It locks it because it's expecting cards from digital cameras, which you would have no reason to overwrite, but if you're taking them from MP3 players (or, in my case, a Gameboy Advance M3 media player [ie... media and GBA/DS game player - wonderful bit of hardware btw]) it considers it as a digital camera card, which you really shouldn't be editing (a lot of digital cameras have pseudo-proprietary methods of writing to the cards). Look through the settings on the printer [the actual printer hardware, not the settings in the printer's Windows drivers] for a read-only lock on memory cards. There's probably nothing wrong with your memory card, you just have to tell the printer to allow writing to it.
Just because. I'd have replied with "All Hail Discordia" if you were of that persuasion as well. It's always nice to see someone with similar beliefs, and I like to acknowledge them as such.
I'm just going to go ahead and share my views on things. I could have chosen any of a number of places to post it, but this spot just seemed convenient.
I view it like this - stealing is when you have something, and I take it, causing you to have it no longer. You've got a car, I take it, you can't use the car anymore - I stole it.
I don't believe in copyright infringement when it comes to software or music. I know that's a big no-no to some of you, but I see it like this: I'm working at McDonalds. I make [now that minimum wage in MI was raised] $6.95 an hour (before that, I only made $5.78!). My money can only go so far. [btw - I happen to be a socialist anarchist, so my views don't correspond well with the majority of capitalists, but I think I've a right to my views nonetheless - and legal or not in practice, I have a right to share them, just to get my point across. ] Anyway, if I were REALLY limited to spending just what I make, I wouldn't have much. In essence, I'd be delegated to the social status of many in third-world nations. My take on the issue is that, since I wouldn't be buying these things otherwise - when you make less than $800 a month, and have certain bills that must be paid (rent, food, college loans...), it just MAKES SENSE to violate copyright laws in order to achieve a standard of living comparable to those that make more than twice what you do. (And before you all start berating me about why I don't just get a better job - I'm in MI, which is the highest state in the US for unemployment, the fact I even have a job is amazing. And the only reason I'm not currently furthuring my education is because I can't afford it [a vicious cycle]).
The point I'm trying to make is - why, just because I happen to be in the unfortunate position of working at a crappy job (and yet a necessary job - how many people would be absolutely pissed if they weren't able to get fast food anymore? McDonalds et. al. may suck, but it doesn't stop several tens of thousands [or more] from going there every day). Yes, I'm a socialist, an anarchist, and to a lesser extent a communist - but even at that, I don't believe that everyone should be treated equally. Everyone shouldn't feel the need to drive around in Mercedes, and have plasma TVs - physical items are one thing, I don't feel a right to own physical copies of the CDs I've downloaded. But what's the harm in me having MP3 copies of music that I would never have bought in the first place, just because I couldn't afford it. How many people do you know that would have actually bought a copy of Adobe Photoshop, at its $400+ price-tag?
It's one thing if you can actually afford the things you're pirating, at that point it is tantamount to theft, but if you never would have bought it in the first place (or would have only under better financial circumstances on your part), I don't see any harm for someone to enjoy something they would have purchased - if only they were able to. I know I personally would be more than happy to buy some of the CDs that I have downloaded, and will as soon as my financial situation is a little better - but until then, I'm just happy to enjoy them via the only method I can.
If no one ever explained an acronym they were using, then I don't think that anyone would be using any acronyms anywhere, at any time... Someone's got to explain it at least once in order for people to have any clue what the hell they're talking about. Do you think that the first person to ever say "lol" didn't have to explain what they meant?
I'm not defending his acronym (I feel that any acronym longer than four characters is just excessive, and you may as well just say what you mean) but if someone feels like coming up with a new acronym (and god knows people are doing it all the time), I'm more than happy to allow them to explain it the first time. I subscribe to eWeek (an IT magazine) and sometimes I'm left in a confused stupor of sorts when they throw six different acronyms at me, all within the course of a paragraph, and don't bother to define any one of them. A lot of them are understandable by context, some I've gotten to know over time, but I still wish a people would just write what they mean more often. When you're typing 70+ wpm [see, there's another one!] what's the harm in just writing it out?
And when I read your subject, I thought you were going to say that this is the sort of thing that homeland security really should be covering... what's the sense of having people on guard to protect the USA from terrorists 24/7 if they can't also double by protecting US citizens having trouble within the homeland? They're already watching, and they're getting mucho-funding, so setting up a nationwide system where people in this sort of situation can push a button in an emergency and have ambulances rush to their house (and notify neighbors and emergency contacts) shouldn't be a huge trouble. I'm sure the DHS could get the cell carriers to provide emergency services like this, possibly without cost.
In all reality, it's pointless to withhold information from anyone, anywhere. If we start doing that, then (the cliche) "only the outlaws will have it" comes into play. Especially today, with the internet, there is no information that cannot be obtained - even in heavily-censored countries like China - without some measure of work, ingenuity, and willfulness to break the law. Some things may be harder to get, but it won't stop anyone in the long run. Just like DRM, all it does is make it more difficult for those who have a legitimate reason for wanting to know to get what they need.
That's probably why he's doing it... if you were interested in books by an author, would [normal people, not necessarily you] go to wikipedia to read about them, or would you look for a website about the author/a certain book they've published?
It's the same case here - if you're looking for info on cryptography, and weren't already knowledgeable that wikipedia had a good crypto project going, you'd probably look for a website that was specifically about disseminating info about cryptography. It's important that it would be included back into the original wikipedia article (and vice versa), because the different sites may have different audiences. It's all about getting the most information out to the greatest amount of people. I know I wouldn't think to go to wikipedia for info on cryptography either - I would now, but that's because I know about the project. In any case, I just want a very detailed, example plagued, 'talking to a drunk retarded 4-year-old' explanation of the Euclidean algorithm [and extended variant] and an example of implementation, because I'll be damned if I can figure it out.
When I was at RIT, we used Direct Connect (well, DC++), and some genious (possibly at U of R?) came up with the i2hub - a DC hub that was to be populated only by students at universities utilizing the Internet 2 network. Absofuckinglutly amazing transfer rates. 3-5MB/s (bytes, not bits) from someone at a university 1500 miles away. We could just about saturate our 100mbit lines when downloading from others inside the university's local network too (9-11MB/s [again, bytes, not bits] wasn't unheard of, nor rare).
They were shut down like half-way through the 2004 school year, I believe. I wasn't attending anymore at that time, but anyways - that was probably the best P2P experience most people could ever dream of.
Excellent plan, the university should go into the business of selling condoms.
Weird analogy, having to qualify the "would you have sex with a prostitute" part with "without using a condom". Granted, I personally just wouldn't have sex with a prostitute. Doesn't mean I wouldn't get online though.
[aside from this list of things they blocked/throttled] they gave public IPs to all the students seemingly with no restrictions
Just had to laugh a little there... I went to RIT, and at the time (2003), we had as close to unrestricted access to everything under the sun as I could have dreamed of. During the year, I never came across something that was blocked, and if they were using packet shaping, I couldn't tell. 100mbit pipe to every room, public IPs, ssh was encouraged (to tunnel into the CS computers and work on your lab assignments remotely), I'm pretty sure at some point during the year I had an SMTP server running, I know I had a web server running most of the year, and FTP, Windows filesharing was open (and I came across some accidently shared sex videos of my [female] RA due to that). As many IPs as I wanted, dynamically assigned, but only to approved MAC addresses (also fun, given that for some reason I had two ethernet ports on my side of the room [my roommate had one on his side too], so just for fun I bonded the connections for a 200mbit max transfer rate.)
While I'm sure a bit of googling would solve this, it always seemed to me that a cpu in a vacuum (or anything that produces a high amount of heat, really) just wouldn't cool down. I don't know what the temperature of space is, but from experience (on Earth, go figure) you need something to transfer the heat to. A vacuum could be -200F (just a random temperature pulled out my ass), but if a cpu is sitting in it, putting out heat, what would be there to transfer it away from the processor? A gigantic heatsink, maybe, but then what would transfer the heat off of that? It's not like you could blow a fan at it. While it's obvious (the sun, and other stars would be a good example) heat can transfer through space, look at where it's coming from - a huge, constant, nuclear-fusion explosion. I've got a feeling that a cpu in a vacuum would end up a little similar. There's nowhere for the heat to go, and in any case, not quickly enough, so it seem to me that it would just burn itself out.
Anyone have any info?
As for the OP, I'm on dialup, which everyone knows is useless for online gaming. Never used satellite internet, but the cost looked prohibitively expensive (Hughes Net is the one I was looking at) for any bandwidth that was worth paying for. I didn't intend to play games with it, so the major deal-breaker for me was the reasonable-use policy. Even if I wasn't using it to download illegal music and such, I bet it wouldn't take too much to hit the cap just by a visit to youtube, google video, or grabbing a couple Linux distros. Since I would be downloading music (we'll just assume legally here...) and porn (and here) too, it's just unreasonable.
The really sad part is that I can't even get ISDN where I am. No cable, no DSL - even with dialup I only get 33.6k connections, and that's on a good day.
$18,000 (or, let's say $9,000, going with a single cell processor as opposed to dual cells) vs. $600 doesn't sound too cheap to me, but maybe I'm overlooking something?
Political surveys and other legitimate research are explicitly exempted from all do-not-call laws. Why? Because what politician would vote to ban political surveys? They rely on these results for their lifeblood. I can't believe that I don't see any mention of this in earlier posts. If you don't like being called for surveys, complain to your elected officials. (But don't count on getting much attention.)
Yeah, sounds great. I'll go and register to vote, so then I'll get a bunch of political survey calls, and be required to do jury-duty to boot.
Just saying that because it's the first thing that popped into my head after reading your subject. A fantastic method of getting rid of political surveys is to just tell them I'm not registered to vote, and have absolutely no intention of ever registering to vote. They don't like that.
They're probably listening to you saying 'independant' and thinking 'undecided', so instead of taking you off their call list this time, they're putting you on their MUST CALL list. Next time, just tell them that you intend to vote for them, and help to fuck their survey up.
In most cases, I would say - yes, it's a horrible thing to do, but he was being paid to do it. Now, if he were doing this voluntarily, I would say fine the fuck out of him, but everyone's got to have a job, even if you don't really believe in the methods behind it.
just a thought... would it be illegal (I would hope it would be, but don't know) for Candidate R. to call a bunch of people and super-annoyingly tell them to vote for Candidate D., in hopes of pissing them off enough that even if they would have voted for R, they would instead vote for D?
funny so many/.ers have their task bar at the top... I've been doing it for more than a year now, and it just feels right. I've never been particularly inclined to use a Mac (while Windows may have a reputation for crashing, I very strongly believe the issue is far more user-error based than OS-based, at least from Win2k onwards. The only times my system [Windows 2003 Server] crashes is because I'm doing things I know I probably shouldn't be [have to keep reminding myself that just because there's a changeable setting doesn't necissarily mean it needs to be set to something else... wait, I wonder what this does?...]), but Apple probably does have the upper-hand for UI development.
Funny story about why I moved it up there in the first place... I had two CRT monitors, one was old and 'broken' (something about the focus of the raygun, I think - it would make the image like 40% of the screen size, and that was when you had the controls for the image height and width turned up all the way) - but I found that if I flipped it upside down, something would "click" and it would work fine again, albeit upside down. I figured, at this point I have a monitor that works, and one that works while upside down. ATI's Catalyst Control Center has an option for flipping the screen vertically, so I ended up stacking my monitors one on top of the other. It annoyed me to have to go all the way to the bottom of the bottom monitor, when my mouse pointer was in the top screen, just to get to the start menu - so I put it half-way between, at the top of the bottom monitor's screen. After awhile, I got rid of my upside-down monitor (having it upside down stopped working, and oddly enough, flipping it right side up didn't help either) - but I left the taskbar at the top of the remaining monitor, and that's where it's been since - and where I intend to keep it.
Damn, I'm glad I'm posting to a technology forum, because I'm sure anyone else who read that would have been bored to tears...
Tho actually, I'm left handed, and I couldn't imagine using a mouse with my left hand. I've tried before, and it just feels totally awkward. I assume that I would get used to it if I just did it long enough, but I've never felt, for any reason, that it would be beneficial for me to do so. So, my advice to left handed people whining about scrollbars - just give in and use your right hand, whiner.:)
I'm sure all left handed people have had issues with this or that (spiral notebooks being one of the worst, and pens with ink that doesn't dry quickly) but you've had to adapt to it. I can cut just fine with right handed scisors, using my left hand. You do it enough, and it becomes second nature. Generally, I think you'd be much better off to not fight with things, and just do it whatever way comes naturally to you. Even if you know you're left handed, just start out using the mouse on the right, because that's the way it's usually set up anyways. Even if you know there's left handed scisors out there, don't go out and buy some, because it's not like you're going to carry them everywhere you go, and sooner or later you'll have to use right handed scisors like everyone else - you may as well be used to it.
I think that it's been proven (or at least I remember reading somewhere that it has...) that smaller class sizes generally produce higher grades. Most higher-level (post-graduate classes, and advanced topics, generally) classes have very small classes, less than 30, sometimes 10 or fewer, even.
Let's take a situation where your class [not necessarily your class in particular, but since you're a professor, why not - but let's think of teaching a lecture class of 200 students, as an example].
I believe that, even if every possible aspect of your class was presented online, in some form or another (podcasts, videocasts, slides, typed outlines, whatever) - several students would still show up for the lecture. Even in the dryest subjects, with the most boring and unengaging teachers, some students do show up. Is it possible that your attendance rate could drop from 80% to 20%? - Sure. And Good. Instead of lecturing in a large hall to 160 students, you're left with a classroom of 40 - still big, but more manageable, and more personable. Even better - maybe attendance drops to 10% and you're left with only 20 students. Instead of a lecture, it would be almost like a tutoring session.
Present the material, as you would to a class of 200, using visual cues from the 20 students left - most professors only look at the students in the first few rows anyways - and allow questions and discussion. I feel that a student would be much more likely to interrupt a class of 20 to ask a question, than to interrupt a class of 200. There's also a higher likelyhood that you'd actually see this person raising their hand to ask something, as opposed to seeing someone in the middle of the 20th row. Record it all, use video if possible (necessary if you happen to teach visually, or are in a field which necessitates visual teaching) - and post the recording of your tutoring-session-sized lecture for the entirety of your 200 student class to view. You don't really need, as a professor, to personally see to it that each of your students passes - in all reality, it's impossible. Some students will ignore the wealth of information available in the class archives, won't watch the videocasts, read the prescribed texts, or attend the lectures themselves - these people are impossible to reach, and forcing attendance through grades isn't going to help them, once they've fallen behind (by not reading the text, doing assignments, or what-have-you) even if 10% of their grade is participation, they will just stop coming. They 'know' they're going to fail anyway, so why bother. The rest though, that's where possibilities lie, and allowing for someone who doesn't want to/can't make the classes to still gain all the knowledge from the class (partly by hearing the discussions, and the answers to questions posed by the ~20 students which do attend - which generally wouldn't happen, or would happen much less, in a lecture hall of 160) would allow them to gain the credit, while still putting in some amount of work - even if the work doesn't include sitting in a cramped lecture hall for 3 hours twice a week, and walking a half mile to said hall carrying a bag full of books through 6" of snow and 40mph winds with a windchill of -18F [ahh... wonderful memories of RIT...].
I've heard of professors (one that quickly comes to mind is Alexander Shulgin, because I've read his books) that would make a syllabus which said which parts of the books to read, and then not talk a bit about them during the class lecture. Instead, they would cover other things which weren't in the book, sometimes go more in depth about certain subjects which were only briefly covered in the texts, and sometimes just go off on tangents of their own which were related to the field, but wouldn't be covered in any text. The only thing that allowed him [Shulgin, in this case] to do this was the students actually having to have read the text, because if they were to go to the lecture without the background in the book, they would be completely lost.
I think this is an excellent method of teaching (though it may not seem like it, especially to people who hate reading textbooks). The lecture wouldn't just be a rehashing of the assigned reading - it would be a complete departure from it. One would have to familiarize themselves with the textbook topic, or the in-depth coverage would be meaningless to them. Not only does it encourage reading of the assigned materials, it also encourages students to come in to class, if just to find out what their professor was going to chat about that day. This may only be feasable in classes with somewhat interesting topics (or to students somewhat interested in the topic, regardless of its general interest), but I think that even if you're just going for the credits you would have far more incentive to attend lectures as well as read the texts if it wasn't the same material you had just read being covered again.
not saying if it's a good idea or not, but your B point is somewhat moot in that they're not trying to create a webpage, they're trying to create a mock-up of a webpage.
I kind of think it's a good idea, just in that one would be able to position elements, including radio-buttons and check-boxes (and, if they really wanted to, they could make them functional without too much effort, Visual Basic does have its positive side - and that's RAD [rapid application development]), images, and other user-interface bits and pieces. No, it wouldn't load up in IE or Firefox, but a piece of paper with a sketch on it wouldn't either. The point is to communicate the idea, and VB would achieve that (I personally think it would be easier in VB6 or lower, I haven't put time into getting my head around VB.Net yet - it's hard to 'know' a language, and then be presented with something that's 'a newer version' but much different).
Of course, given the requirement of Linux, your point A trumps my counterpoint to your point B, but I figured I'd just chime in pointlessly and waste bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
They only give you one IDE channel because they're expecting you to put a [CD/DVD]-[ROM/RW] drive on it, and use SATA for HDDs. While some economy-line mobos still have two IDE channels (and maybe two or so SATA), most decent boards now are expecting that you'll use SATA for HDDs. (BTW... we both really should be saying PATA instead of IDE - SATA drives are still IDE drives).
For example - I just got an Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe +Wireless board, and it's only got one PATA channel, but has six SATAs, plus an internal and an external SATA connector on a separate controller chip.
You may be being forced to upgrade, but it won't bother you too much when PATA HDDs are totally phased out.
Some printers with multimedia-card slots (my Canon Pixma, for example) lock the card as read-only. You can change it in the printer's settings (not in software, but on the printer's hardware settings). It locks it because it's expecting cards from digital cameras, which you would have no reason to overwrite, but if you're taking them from MP3 players (or, in my case, a Gameboy Advance M3 media player [ie... media and GBA/DS game player - wonderful bit of hardware btw]) it considers it as a digital camera card, which you really shouldn't be editing (a lot of digital cameras have pseudo-proprietary methods of writing to the cards). Look through the settings on the printer [the actual printer hardware, not the settings in the printer's Windows drivers] for a read-only lock on memory cards. There's probably nothing wrong with your memory card, you just have to tell the printer to allow writing to it.
Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.
Just because. I'd have replied with "All Hail Discordia" if you were of that persuasion as well. It's always nice to see someone with similar beliefs, and I like to acknowledge them as such.
Good on you, in any case.
<3 Douglas Adams <3
I'm just going to go ahead and share my views on things. I could have chosen any of a number of places to post it, but this spot just seemed convenient.
I view it like this - stealing is when you have something, and I take it, causing you to have it no longer. You've got a car, I take it, you can't use the car anymore - I stole it.
I don't believe in copyright infringement when it comes to software or music. I know that's a big no-no to some of you, but I see it like this: I'm working at McDonalds. I make [now that minimum wage in MI was raised] $6.95 an hour (before that, I only made $5.78!). My money can only go so far. [btw - I happen to be a socialist anarchist, so my views don't correspond well with the majority of capitalists, but I think I've a right to my views nonetheless - and legal or not in practice, I have a right to share them, just to get my point across. ] Anyway, if I were REALLY limited to spending just what I make, I wouldn't have much. In essence, I'd be delegated to the social status of many in third-world nations. My take on the issue is that, since I wouldn't be buying these things otherwise - when you make less than $800 a month, and have certain bills that must be paid (rent, food, college loans...), it just MAKES SENSE to violate copyright laws in order to achieve a standard of living comparable to those that make more than twice what you do. (And before you all start berating me about why I don't just get a better job - I'm in MI, which is the highest state in the US for unemployment, the fact I even have a job is amazing. And the only reason I'm not currently furthuring my education is because I can't afford it [a vicious cycle]).
The point I'm trying to make is - why, just because I happen to be in the unfortunate position of working at a crappy job (and yet a necessary job - how many people would be absolutely pissed if they weren't able to get fast food anymore? McDonalds et. al. may suck, but it doesn't stop several tens of thousands [or more] from going there every day). Yes, I'm a socialist, an anarchist, and to a lesser extent a communist - but even at that, I don't believe that everyone should be treated equally. Everyone shouldn't feel the need to drive around in Mercedes, and have plasma TVs - physical items are one thing, I don't feel a right to own physical copies of the CDs I've downloaded. But what's the harm in me having MP3 copies of music that I would never have bought in the first place, just because I couldn't afford it. How many people do you know that would have actually bought a copy of Adobe Photoshop, at its $400+ price-tag?
It's one thing if you can actually afford the things you're pirating, at that point it is tantamount to theft, but if you never would have bought it in the first place (or would have only under better financial circumstances on your part), I don't see any harm for someone to enjoy something they would have purchased - if only they were able to. I know I personally would be more than happy to buy some of the CDs that I have downloaded, and will as soon as my financial situation is a little better - but until then, I'm just happy to enjoy them via the only method I can.
If no one ever explained an acronym they were using, then I don't think that anyone would be using any acronyms anywhere, at any time... Someone's got to explain it at least once in order for people to have any clue what the hell they're talking about. Do you think that the first person to ever say "lol" didn't have to explain what they meant?
I'm not defending his acronym (I feel that any acronym longer than four characters is just excessive, and you may as well just say what you mean) but if someone feels like coming up with a new acronym (and god knows people are doing it all the time), I'm more than happy to allow them to explain it the first time. I subscribe to eWeek (an IT magazine) and sometimes I'm left in a confused stupor of sorts when they throw six different acronyms at me, all within the course of a paragraph, and don't bother to define any one of them. A lot of them are understandable by context, some I've gotten to know over time, but I still wish a people would just write what they mean more often. When you're typing 70+ wpm [see, there's another one!] what's the harm in just writing it out?
And when I read your subject, I thought you were going to say that this is the sort of thing that homeland security really should be covering... what's the sense of having people on guard to protect the USA from terrorists 24/7 if they can't also double by protecting US citizens having trouble within the homeland? They're already watching, and they're getting mucho-funding, so setting up a nationwide system where people in this sort of situation can push a button in an emergency and have ambulances rush to their house (and notify neighbors and emergency contacts) shouldn't be a huge trouble. I'm sure the DHS could get the cell carriers to provide emergency services like this, possibly without cost.
In all reality, it's pointless to withhold information from anyone, anywhere. If we start doing that, then (the cliche) "only the outlaws will have it" comes into play. Especially today, with the internet, there is no information that cannot be obtained - even in heavily-censored countries like China - without some measure of work, ingenuity, and willfulness to break the law. Some things may be harder to get, but it won't stop anyone in the long run. Just like DRM, all it does is make it more difficult for those who have a legitimate reason for wanting to know to get what they need.
That's probably why he's doing it... if you were interested in books by an author, would [normal people, not necessarily you] go to wikipedia to read about them, or would you look for a website about the author/a certain book they've published?
It's the same case here - if you're looking for info on cryptography, and weren't already knowledgeable that wikipedia had a good crypto project going, you'd probably look for a website that was specifically about disseminating info about cryptography. It's important that it would be included back into the original wikipedia article (and vice versa), because the different sites may have different audiences. It's all about getting the most information out to the greatest amount of people. I know I wouldn't think to go to wikipedia for info on cryptography either - I would now, but that's because I know about the project. In any case, I just want a very detailed, example plagued, 'talking to a drunk retarded 4-year-old' explanation of the Euclidean algorithm [and extended variant] and an example of implementation, because I'll be damned if I can figure it out.
When I was at RIT, we used Direct Connect (well, DC++), and some genious (possibly at U of R?) came up with the i2hub - a DC hub that was to be populated only by students at universities utilizing the Internet 2 network. Absofuckinglutly amazing transfer rates. 3-5MB/s (bytes, not bits) from someone at a university 1500 miles away. We could just about saturate our 100mbit lines when downloading from others inside the university's local network too (9-11MB/s [again, bytes, not bits] wasn't unheard of, nor rare).
They were shut down like half-way through the 2004 school year, I believe. I wasn't attending anymore at that time, but anyways - that was probably the best P2P experience most people could ever dream of.
Excellent plan, the university should go into the business of selling condoms.
Weird analogy, having to qualify the "would you have sex with a prostitute" part with "without using a condom". Granted, I personally just wouldn't have sex with a prostitute. Doesn't mean I wouldn't get online though.
I miss RIT. Too bad I can't afford it.
block windows_host from ipv6 network
?
I'm running Windows Server 2003 and I still had to say it...
While I'm sure a bit of googling would solve this, it always seemed to me that a cpu in a vacuum (or anything that produces a high amount of heat, really) just wouldn't cool down. I don't know what the temperature of space is, but from experience (on Earth, go figure) you need something to transfer the heat to. A vacuum could be -200F (just a random temperature pulled out my ass), but if a cpu is sitting in it, putting out heat, what would be there to transfer it away from the processor? A gigantic heatsink, maybe, but then what would transfer the heat off of that? It's not like you could blow a fan at it. While it's obvious (the sun, and other stars would be a good example) heat can transfer through space, look at where it's coming from - a huge, constant, nuclear-fusion explosion. I've got a feeling that a cpu in a vacuum would end up a little similar. There's nowhere for the heat to go, and in any case, not quickly enough, so it seem to me that it would just burn itself out.
Anyone have any info?
As for the OP, I'm on dialup, which everyone knows is useless for online gaming. Never used satellite internet, but the cost looked prohibitively expensive (Hughes Net is the one I was looking at) for any bandwidth that was worth paying for. I didn't intend to play games with it, so the major deal-breaker for me was the reasonable-use policy. Even if I wasn't using it to download illegal music and such, I bet it wouldn't take too much to hit the cap just by a visit to youtube, google video, or grabbing a couple Linux distros. Since I would be downloading music (we'll just assume legally here...) and porn (and here) too, it's just unreasonable.
The really sad part is that I can't even get ISDN where I am. No cable, no DSL - even with dialup I only get 33.6k connections, and that's on a good day.
$18,000 (or, let's say $9,000, going with a single cell processor as opposed to dual cells) vs. $600 doesn't sound too cheap to me, but maybe I'm overlooking something?
Vietnam 2: The War in Iraq starring President George 'Dubya' Bush as "President on Vacation"
it is a good plan if they're those that DO vote for your opposition
They're probably listening to you saying 'independant' and thinking 'undecided', so instead of taking you off their call list this time, they're putting you on their MUST CALL list. Next time, just tell them that you intend to vote for them, and help to fuck their survey up.
In most cases, I would say - yes, it's a horrible thing to do, but he was being paid to do it. Now, if he were doing this voluntarily, I would say fine the fuck out of him, but everyone's got to have a job, even if you don't really believe in the methods behind it.
just a thought... would it be illegal (I would hope it would be, but don't know) for Candidate R. to call a bunch of people and super-annoyingly tell them to vote for Candidate D., in hopes of pissing them off enough that even if they would have voted for R, they would instead vote for D?
funny so many /.ers have their task bar at the top... I've been doing it for more than a year now, and it just feels right. I've never been particularly inclined to use a Mac (while Windows may have a reputation for crashing, I very strongly believe the issue is far more user-error based than OS-based, at least from Win2k onwards. The only times my system [Windows 2003 Server] crashes is because I'm doing things I know I probably shouldn't be [have to keep reminding myself that just because there's a changeable setting doesn't necissarily mean it needs to be set to something else... wait, I wonder what this does?...]), but Apple probably does have the upper-hand for UI development.
Funny story about why I moved it up there in the first place... I had two CRT monitors, one was old and 'broken' (something about the focus of the raygun, I think - it would make the image like 40% of the screen size, and that was when you had the controls for the image height and width turned up all the way) - but I found that if I flipped it upside down, something would "click" and it would work fine again, albeit upside down. I figured, at this point I have a monitor that works, and one that works while upside down. ATI's Catalyst Control Center has an option for flipping the screen vertically, so I ended up stacking my monitors one on top of the other. It annoyed me to have to go all the way to the bottom of the bottom monitor, when my mouse pointer was in the top screen, just to get to the start menu - so I put it half-way between, at the top of the bottom monitor's screen. After awhile, I got rid of my upside-down monitor (having it upside down stopped working, and oddly enough, flipping it right side up didn't help either) - but I left the taskbar at the top of the remaining monitor, and that's where it's been since - and where I intend to keep it.
Damn, I'm glad I'm posting to a technology forum, because I'm sure anyone else who read that would have been bored to tears...
http://spcomputers.net/pictures/thermaltake_silver andred.jpg
:)
:)
My keyboard, see the scrollwheel on the left
Tho actually, I'm left handed, and I couldn't imagine using a mouse with my left hand. I've tried before, and it just feels totally awkward. I assume that I would get used to it if I just did it long enough, but I've never felt, for any reason, that it would be beneficial for me to do so. So, my advice to left handed people whining about scrollbars - just give in and use your right hand, whiner.
I'm sure all left handed people have had issues with this or that (spiral notebooks being one of the worst, and pens with ink that doesn't dry quickly) but you've had to adapt to it. I can cut just fine with right handed scisors, using my left hand. You do it enough, and it becomes second nature. Generally, I think you'd be much better off to not fight with things, and just do it whatever way comes naturally to you. Even if you know you're left handed, just start out using the mouse on the right, because that's the way it's usually set up anyways. Even if you know there's left handed scisors out there, don't go out and buy some, because it's not like you're going to carry them everywhere you go, and sooner or later you'll have to use right handed scisors like everyone else - you may as well be used to it.
I think that it's been proven (or at least I remember reading somewhere that it has...) that smaller class sizes generally produce higher grades. Most higher-level (post-graduate classes, and advanced topics, generally) classes have very small classes, less than 30, sometimes 10 or fewer, even.
Let's take a situation where your class [not necessarily your class in particular, but since you're a professor, why not - but let's think of teaching a lecture class of 200 students, as an example].
I believe that, even if every possible aspect of your class was presented online, in some form or another (podcasts, videocasts, slides, typed outlines, whatever) - several students would still show up for the lecture. Even in the dryest subjects, with the most boring and unengaging teachers, some students do show up. Is it possible that your attendance rate could drop from 80% to 20%? - Sure. And Good. Instead of lecturing in a large hall to 160 students, you're left with a classroom of 40 - still big, but more manageable, and more personable. Even better - maybe attendance drops to 10% and you're left with only 20 students. Instead of a lecture, it would be almost like a tutoring session.
Present the material, as you would to a class of 200, using visual cues from the 20 students left - most professors only look at the students in the first few rows anyways - and allow questions and discussion. I feel that a student would be much more likely to interrupt a class of 20 to ask a question, than to interrupt a class of 200. There's also a higher likelyhood that you'd actually see this person raising their hand to ask something, as opposed to seeing someone in the middle of the 20th row. Record it all, use video if possible (necessary if you happen to teach visually, or are in a field which necessitates visual teaching) - and post the recording of your tutoring-session-sized lecture for the entirety of your 200 student class to view. You don't really need, as a professor, to personally see to it that each of your students passes - in all reality, it's impossible. Some students will ignore the wealth of information available in the class archives, won't watch the videocasts, read the prescribed texts, or attend the lectures themselves - these people are impossible to reach, and forcing attendance through grades isn't going to help them, once they've fallen behind (by not reading the text, doing assignments, or what-have-you) even if 10% of their grade is participation, they will just stop coming. They 'know' they're going to fail anyway, so why bother. The rest though, that's where possibilities lie, and allowing for someone who doesn't want to/can't make the classes to still gain all the knowledge from the class (partly by hearing the discussions, and the answers to questions posed by the ~20 students which do attend - which generally wouldn't happen, or would happen much less, in a lecture hall of 160) would allow them to gain the credit, while still putting in some amount of work - even if the work doesn't include sitting in a cramped lecture hall for 3 hours twice a week, and walking a half mile to said hall carrying a bag full of books through 6" of snow and 40mph winds with a windchill of -18F [ahh... wonderful memories of RIT...].
I've heard of professors (one that quickly comes to mind is Alexander Shulgin, because I've read his books) that would make a syllabus which said which parts of the books to read, and then not talk a bit about them during the class lecture. Instead, they would cover other things which weren't in the book, sometimes go more in depth about certain subjects which were only briefly covered in the texts, and sometimes just go off on tangents of their own which were related to the field, but wouldn't be covered in any text. The only thing that allowed him [Shulgin, in this case] to do this was the students actually having to have read the text, because if they were to go to the lecture without the background in the book, they would be completely lost.
I think this is an excellent method of teaching (though it may not seem like it, especially to people who hate reading textbooks). The lecture wouldn't just be a rehashing of the assigned reading - it would be a complete departure from it. One would have to familiarize themselves with the textbook topic, or the in-depth coverage would be meaningless to them. Not only does it encourage reading of the assigned materials, it also encourages students to come in to class, if just to find out what their professor was going to chat about that day. This may only be feasable in classes with somewhat interesting topics (or to students somewhat interested in the topic, regardless of its general interest), but I think that even if you're just going for the credits you would have far more incentive to attend lectures as well as read the texts if it wasn't the same material you had just read being covered again.
not saying if it's a good idea or not, but your B point is somewhat moot in that they're not trying to create a webpage, they're trying to create a mock-up of a webpage.
I kind of think it's a good idea, just in that one would be able to position elements, including radio-buttons and check-boxes (and, if they really wanted to, they could make them functional without too much effort, Visual Basic does have its positive side - and that's RAD [rapid application development]), images, and other user-interface bits and pieces. No, it wouldn't load up in IE or Firefox, but a piece of paper with a sketch on it wouldn't either. The point is to communicate the idea, and VB would achieve that (I personally think it would be easier in VB6 or lower, I haven't put time into getting my head around VB.Net yet - it's hard to 'know' a language, and then be presented with something that's 'a newer version' but much different).
Of course, given the requirement of Linux, your point A trumps my counterpoint to your point B, but I figured I'd just chime in pointlessly and waste bandwidth.