not sure if the box I was having problems with was 0wned or not, but I've seen something like that happen when you use a not so intelligent software firewall and unusual network configuration. for example, having two routers hooked up together (one being set in switch mode) can cause firewalls to silently block all or more mind-bogglingly just some web requests. in my case when I dug deeper I found the firewall was logging some sort of ICMP based attack. i didn't have much luck with tweaking either of the two firewalls I tried and ended up having to uninstall them.
i had tried using Sygate Personal Firewall which while old and probably no longer very secure, it was pretty nice. i had also tried Sunbelt which was thoroughly overcomplicated and not fine grain enough for ignoring specific false positives. the symptoms I saw were the "internet" was not working (YahooMail not authenticating OR the actual emails not opening) while most of everything else worked, except when it was everything that actually would not work.
One hack of a solution for Windows XP/2000 is to use a mouse tray application like Labtec Mouse V2.1. Make sure the wheel mode is set to enhanced scroll mode and you get very good scrolling based on where the mouse is floating.
It won't work without administrator privileges unfortunately, so i have a shortcut in my start up folder and set the shortcut to run with alternate credentials. You might also get some weird interactions with other mouse software, which may take some work to resolve.
I only wish knew a way to get the same effect without using an application, or at least not a tray application to do it. In the mean time, this hack is a god send for me at least.
I run XP as a power user (not root) and it always asks me to update Firefox to the latest version within a few days of release, so your problem may lie elsewhere. Same thing for the family computer. Sorry I can't offer more specific help.
Well I propose that geeks everywhere chalk up the number/string everywhere. I suppose it would be great for graffiti artists to partake in putting it up everywhere too.
Bonus points for taking a picture and putting it up on the web.
Become an instant web hero if you paint it at any of the many companies belonging to the **AA.
The P3 you list looks a Coppermine, I suspect a P3 Tualatin would perform much better. At least every test and regular usage that I did seemed to indicate it was 33% faster than the Coppermine. It's interesting to see that the Core Duo on par with a Coppermine, I can't see how they could have gone so wrong there. My own testing of the Core 2 seems to indicate it is about 74% faster than the Tualatin clock for clock. My user experience doesn't seem to deny it. I'd expect to see a 2.66 GHz Core 2 closer to 275 Million, which would be similar to the Opteron you list. I'm not sure what's wrong with this picture, but something doesn't add up her.
I'm not sure how valid any of our anecdotal tests are. It's very hard to stress a chip like the Core 2 properly. The task manager will report it at 100% utilization and it will reach X degrees of heat, but if you run something like thermal analysis tool (TAT) it will go way beyond in temperature increase and 100% utilization, using all branches and transistor I would guess.
have you ever tried playing games in the background with Azureus open? With uTorrent you can play nearly any game with no noticeable performance penalty unless it's a hard drive happy game. uTorrent is so efficient that it uses fewer CPU cycles than my application firewall, that's impressive.
Have you ever tried running uTorrent on older hardware? For that matter have you ever tried running Azureus on older hardware? The former uses at most 4% of my modest 1.2GHz processor, while the later uses at least 40% at any half decent speed (say 40KB/sec up and 80 KB down). I don't know about you, but when I have a BT client open, I expect to be able to do something other than let it suck up all my cycles.
I like OSS as much as anyone else but let's judge software on its ability to do the job and its functionality, shall we? Any BT client that uses less processing power than a half-decent firewall is commendable IMO. I trust a developer that can write a good client and appease the user community more than OSS developers and its community deluded about how good their client is. Surely it must be my computer's fault that it is old hardware and cannot handle the BT protocol and traffic.
When I used to use Azureus it basically put my computer to a stand-still as far as doing anything else. Ever since I switched from Azureus to uTorrent, I never looked back. I can do anything else that my computer is able to do; including playing the most demanding games my computer can handle. That's the whole point of uTorrent. I don't think any other client beats it on any performance metric.
The freedom of the rich is not really his point. We are all being watched to catch people like Bin Laden, yet regardless of who these people are, we are being monitored as if we might potentially be one. This is a rather crude approach to solve a complex problem. The problem with American reactions to the "realities" of today is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more blunt the tools the States uses to "crack down" on terrorists, the more likely they are to piss off the people that might become terrorists if push comes to shove.
never heard of it before, but a quick google search starts settnig off alarms immediately
"
System Requirements:
* Windows XP with Service Pack 1 installed or Windows 2000 with Service Pack 3 installed, or newer, or Mac OS X 10.3 or newer.
* A connection to the Internet.
* 512 megabytes of RAM is recommended.
* Lots of spare time.
"
Not exactly a small footprint, which goes against the grain of being simple and innovative. The increase in computing power isn't an excuse to add bloatware to a desktop. I think that's one of the reasons Macs have done as well as they have (even if only a minor one), they don't leave widgets that'll painfully slow things down for the user. I don't know about you, but I think a lot of users like to crank all the settings up, which can lead to sloppy performance if there is bloat left around. For consumer software, it doesn't matter which product has more features if the core of the product is sluggish and gets in the way of getting something done.
I really don't understand what the fuss about the desktop search is, maybe I'm behind the times, but what was wrong with a locally hosted active desktop? Couldn't they achieve the same sort of thing by bundling a dumbed down MSed version of tsDesk? Maybe I'm not looking properly, but does linux have anything comparable to MS's active desktop? Because really, I think tsDesk is the most efficient desktop manager I've ever stumbled upon.
Just have a look at my hacked up version to get an idea of how clean and easy a desktop can be.
Everyone bashes MS for being monolithic, but look at how little Active Desktop caught on. AD let's you customize your desktop more than any desktop I've ever seen and a lot more simply. Sure right out of the bok it's not the easiest thing ever, but with a couple of MS wizards and Clippy I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch for a mildly interested user like Joe Sixpack to play around with.
I think the important bit is that cable length/strength won't be an issue, and that they're hoping that the speed will improve with further development. Conventional elevators didn't start at speeds of 300 meters a minute, let alone 1000. So it's not an unfair stretch that the technology will impove. Okay, I'm pulling this out of my ass, but it's a pretty safe bet.
effective resolution is not the same as optical resolution. you can scan a 640x480 image with an effectively higher resolution, but it's still only a 640x480 image.
the first generation (i.e. the actual film) may have higher resolution, but 2nd generation (aka the print) will not. That's one reason why [film] slides were as popular as they were. Converting from a 1st generation image to 2nd is quite costly (certainly not perfect).
1 CD & 1 Product Key & 1 VPU (of 1 or more CPUs) = 1 price
so instead of charging a fixed price for each slice (for a pizza of n slices), they charge a fixed price for each of the k people eating it. if that's too biased for you, it's more like charging a fixed price for each person's bottomless bowl of MS spaghetti.
Slashdot Mirror
not sure if the box I was having problems with was 0wned or not, but I've seen something like that happen when you use a not so intelligent software firewall and unusual network configuration. for example, having two routers hooked up together (one being set in switch mode) can cause firewalls to silently block all or more mind-bogglingly just some web requests. in my case when I dug deeper I found the firewall was logging some sort of ICMP based attack. i didn't have much luck with tweaking either of the two firewalls I tried and ended up having to uninstall them.
i had tried using Sygate Personal Firewall which while old and probably no longer very secure, it was pretty nice. i had also tried Sunbelt which was thoroughly overcomplicated and not fine grain enough for ignoring specific false positives. the symptoms I saw were the "internet" was not working (YahooMail not authenticating OR the actual emails not opening) while most of everything else worked, except when it was everything that actually would not work.
One hack of a solution for Windows XP/2000 is to use a mouse tray application like Labtec Mouse V2.1. Make sure the wheel mode is set to enhanced scroll mode and you get very good scrolling based on where the mouse is floating.
It won't work without administrator privileges unfortunately, so i have a shortcut in my start up folder and set the shortcut to run with alternate credentials. You might also get some weird interactions with other mouse software, which may take some work to resolve.
I only wish knew a way to get the same effect without using an application, or at least not a tray application to do it. In the mean time, this hack is a god send for me at least.
I run XP as a power user (not root) and it always asks me to update Firefox to the latest version within a few days of release, so your problem may lie elsewhere. Same thing for the family computer. Sorry I can't offer more specific help.
Bonus points for taking a picture and putting it up on the web.
Become an instant web hero if you paint it at any of the many companies belonging to the **AA.
I'm not sure how valid any of our anecdotal tests are. It's very hard to stress a chip like the Core 2 properly. The task manager will report it at 100% utilization and it will reach X degrees of heat, but if you run something like thermal analysis tool (TAT) it will go way beyond in temperature increase and 100% utilization, using all branches and transistor I would guess.
have you ever tried playing games in the background with Azureus open? With uTorrent you can play nearly any game with no noticeable performance penalty unless it's a hard drive happy game. uTorrent is so efficient that it uses fewer CPU cycles than my application firewall, that's impressive.
300Wh/year*$0.1/1000Wh=$0.03/year
if you take 1024 discs with you it's a whopping 303GB/s!!!!!
I like OSS as much as anyone else but let's judge software on its ability to do the job and its functionality, shall we? Any BT client that uses less processing power than a half-decent firewall is commendable IMO. I trust a developer that can write a good client and appease the user community more than OSS developers and its community deluded about how good their client is. Surely it must be my computer's fault that it is old hardware and cannot handle the BT protocol and traffic.
When I used to use Azureus it basically put my computer to a stand-still as far as doing anything else. Ever since I switched from Azureus to uTorrent, I never looked back. I can do anything else that my computer is able to do; including playing the most demanding games my computer can handle. That's the whole point of uTorrent. I don't think any other client beats it on any performance metric.
No...they'll just get their "rockhead" boyfriends to buy them a new computer every few weeks :(
The freedom of the rich is not really his point. We are all being watched to catch people like Bin Laden, yet regardless of who these people are, we are being monitored as if we might potentially be one. This is a rather crude approach to solve a complex problem. The problem with American reactions to the "realities" of today is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more blunt the tools the States uses to "crack down" on terrorists, the more likely they are to piss off the people that might become terrorists if push comes to shove.
never heard of it before, but a quick google search starts settnig off alarms immediately
"
System Requirements:
* Windows XP with Service Pack 1 installed or Windows 2000 with Service Pack 3 installed, or newer, or Mac OS X 10.3 or newer.
* A connection to the Internet.
* 512 megabytes of RAM is recommended.
* Lots of spare time.
"
Not exactly a small footprint, which goes against the grain of being simple and innovative. The increase in computing power isn't an excuse to add bloatware to a desktop. I think that's one of the reasons Macs have done as well as they have (even if only a minor one), they don't leave widgets that'll painfully slow things down for the user. I don't know about you, but I think a lot of users like to crank all the settings up, which can lead to sloppy performance if there is bloat left around. For consumer software, it doesn't matter which product has more features if the core of the product is sluggish and gets in the way of getting something done.
Just have a look at my hacked up version to get an idea of how clean and easy a desktop can be.
Here's how it looks by defaulte b2006min0vj.jpg
http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenief
Here's how it looks when you start expanding thingse b20064nh.jpg
http://img76.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenief
Everyone bashes MS for being monolithic, but look at how little Active Desktop caught on. AD let's you customize your desktop more than any desktop I've ever seen and a lot more simply. Sure right out of the bok it's not the easiest thing ever, but with a couple of MS wizards and Clippy I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch for a mildly interested user like Joe Sixpack to play around with.
I think the important bit is that cable length/strength won't be an issue, and that they're hoping that the speed will improve with further development. Conventional elevators didn't start at speeds of 300 meters a minute, let alone 1000. So it's not an unfair stretch that the technology will impove. Okay, I'm pulling this out of my ass, but it's a pretty safe bet.
"You get a general mental version of the world your in ... unless your imaginaionally inept"
Welcome to slashdot!
effective resolution is not the same as optical resolution. you can scan a 640x480 image with an effectively higher resolution, but it's still only a 640x480 image.
the first generation (i.e. the actual film) may have higher resolution, but 2nd generation (aka the print) will not. That's one reason why [film] slides were as popular as they were. Converting from a 1st generation image to 2nd is quite costly (certainly not perfect).
1 CD & 1 Product Key & 1 Beowolf Cluster = 1 price
alright, scratch that, bad joke.
1 CD & 1 Product Key & 1 VPU (of 1 or more CPUs) = 1 price
so instead of charging a fixed price for each slice (for a pizza of n slices), they charge a fixed price for each of the k people eating it. if that's too biased for you, it's more like charging a fixed price for each person's bottomless bowl of MS spaghetti.