The "basics"? The reality is that such information is seldom of any purpose whatsoever for a software developer (though I'm curious which service in particular you can't find: Of the Microsoft installed services, all will get multiple hits in the MSDN library, and of course the MSDN Library clearly documents how services are launched from HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services, so the specific documentation is hardly necessary). Win32 provides APIs that you interact with, and the particular implementation on a specific Win32 implementation is largely irrelevant.
Of course, the MSDN is for developers and it presumes a rudimentary "Windows Business OS' For Dummies" type knowledge: One should already know how services work and how to perform basic system administration.
What the hell are you talking about? Clearly you have absolutely ZERO experience with the MSDN Library, but instead you just saw an avenue to spout some pro-Java, anti-MS BS.
The MSDN Library is very intelligently structured into a hierarchy of logical categories and subcategories, and if you have the local app you can limit your searches to specific branches (or combinations of branches). The documentation is, err, "Formal" references and "specifications", and actually has too FEW examples (nice attempt at trying for the highbrow "Java programmers SMRT, MS programmers dumb". It looks stupid, though, given the grossly incorrect representation of how the MSDN Library works).
I actually agree with the original guy that the regular expression portion of Microsoft's documentation is weak, and I would say right so : That is something that can be a science unto itself, and the Microsoft documentation couldn't do it justice without dedicating basically a book to it. Instead they give you an intro and point you to other resources. The correct choice in my opinion.
There is no need for a specialized separation between "LAN" and "internet" connectivity (otherwise a lot of large corporations had better go in and retrofit their entire organizations: Apparently they need a second `internet' port on every PC): Most homes facilitate this by a single, usually low end (i.e. not nForce2), dual-ported machine, or alternately via a router. The idea that every PC needs two ports is ludicrous.
Pet Peeve: I'm getting bloody tired of all of the "READ THE ARTICLE!" BS on Slashdot. As is evidenced by the preceeding paragraph THE ARTICLE IS LARGELY WRONG. Articles are just "Slashdot postings" with perhaps a slightly higher standard of spelling and integrity : Just because some guy put it in an "article" doesn't mean it's right, or that it can't be questioned.
The logic is that I can't "upgrade" my video card without throwing it out, just like an XBox person can throw out their XBox and buy a PC, or an XBox 2, when the time comes. Hell, I'll bet you that this motherboard alone, when it comes out (eventually), will cost as much as an XBox costs.
Sorry but your argument sounds like the argument of a vengeful, spiteful, jealous sideliner. i.e. "HA! I'll bet those stupid Geforce 3 buyers feel dumb now that the Geforce 4 is out!" "I'll bet those Athlon people feel dumb now that the Hammer is out!". Sorry, but I've seen that sort of self-justification far too long in too many message boards. I don't have an XBox (I do too much on my PC to neglect having a good rig), but I can certainly see the allure and logic of it.
Re:Why two ethernet controllers?
on
nForce2 Preview
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, apparently nvidia makes the integrated Ethernet port (integrated in the motherboard chipset), and 3COM makes the integrated, but circuitry isolated, "add-in" card. 3COM makes superb cards and chipsets.
What makes either of them "scary"? Passport is quite simply a method of "one user, one identity" (and for that it is brilliant. I recently was tasked with designing an authentication required system, and Passport was a heavy contender. The alternative, of course, is that most people just leave after being forced to create YET ANOTHER identity at yet another site), but the reality is that you can have as many identities as you want, and nothing whatsoever guarantees that you've actually given Microsoft the correct information at all (I don't recall them requiring photo ID to sign up for a Hotmail account yet).
In a nutshell this is just a centralized user/password authentication system, because without something like this becoming widespread sites that require authentication will continue to seem to be more of a nuisance to people : How many times have you followed a link to be brought to the New York Times page only to say "Aw forget it...." (maybe you got an account at one point, but it's among hundreds of accounts that you've long since forgotten the passwords to).
It would be a ridiculous protest. Like many cold, hard realities that have become apparent as of late, network television is paid for by advertisements. Don't watch advertiser sponsored programs if you have such an aversion to it. The reality is that as advertisement avoidance becomes more common, they either need to find a way to get the message through, or they need to charge subscription fees or fold up: There is no other way. Big companies don't sponsor television just because it's some sort of welfare program for the lazy.
I'm sorry, did I miss you being nominated (and elected) master debate leader? The point specifically dealt with communism, and the prior poster's incoherent ramblings about how ownership is artificial (by that regards you can say that all ownership is artificial. If I come to your house with a bat and kick you out, is that legitimate? I mean, really, all "ownership" is is a couple of papers filed with a government office). I would say that China, one of the very last communist strongholds, is perfectly relevant.
I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. I completely agree that an "expert system" database system is an awesome companion for, well, an expert. My only disagreement with the article is the idea that it can supplant an expert : I have no doubt that when the printing press was first created there were advocates claiming that it would make us all experts and obsolete any specialized field: I may be able to read a book on mechanics, but I'll trust an experienced mechanic over my own myopic, singular knowledge any day.
It's important to remember that on the opposite side are people passionately defending their system just as stubbornly, and it's very likely (because such is human nature) that when they punch in the facts and it spits out a grossly incorrectly, possibly even dangerous, diagnosis that it's quickly deleted. I doubt the doctor in question had a problem with a computer system doubting his findings, but rather just personal pride getting in the way when someone made him question his own ability: You can find the exact same reaction in some members of any knowledge based field. Tell that Linux guy at work that you think he's way in left field and has got it all wrong, because that's what you read on an AOL board...
Expert systems have been oversold for decades, and if you believed the predictions 20 years ago you would be sure that any knowledge based career would have been long obsoleted by such systems.
The same holds true of many professions : Have you ever had two "expert" programmers with diametrically opposed viewpoints who have each other's word used against each other? The outcome can be very ugly.
One important thing that you need to keep in mind when reading articles like this is that, regardless of whether it might be the first and only article on nutrition you've ever seen and it seems like a real revolution because it was submitted to Slashdot, it is one article in a sea of tens, or rather hundreds, of thousands of nutritional articles. I read the article and most of it comes across as so ridiculous (such as claims that North American obesity is on the rise because we're all trying to go low-fat...that almost made me choke up my double Big Mac I was slurping down), and so presumptive, that contrasted with the hundreds of other articles I've read on the subject (it most certainly isn't my profession, but health and well being does interest me so I keep up on it) it holds very little weight, pardon the pun. Saying "read the article!" is like some wanker yapping about how someone shouldn't see a doctor, they should just search Google : Just because someone `printed' something doesn't mean much.
My god, this has got to be one of the silliest posts I've ever seen on Slashdot (and that's saying a lot): In essence your argument boils down to "Their content is all crap, so therefore I should be able to copy it." How utterly ridiculous.
As far as the "false scarcity" BS: No, it's REAL scarcity because we, society in general, realized that without copyright protections a lot of things wouldn't get made in the first place. As such we offered up some basic legal protections for creators to profit from their work. You got a problem with that then either fight copyright legislation (realizing that, regardless of how foot thumpingly righteous you are about your insanely contradictory argument, that doesn't mean that you can write your own laws just because you disagree), or pack up and move to China. Enjoy your stay.
You really top off your argument with that final paragraph.
I find this especially humorous: I've run variants of 95, 98, ME, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP since August 31st, 1995, and I have never had my machine compromised (nor have I ever had a virus for that matter). A friend, a heavy Linux advocate, has had his Linux box rooted _3_TIMES_. I realize that in both cases we're probably outlyers in the sample spread, but your sample cases are ridiculous.
I personally can't wait to see how they will deal with the ad hoc wireless networks that will start springing up in public places.
It's pretty obvious: They'll sue the wireless provider for facilitating a crime. Anonymous wireless, and I guarantee this, will never become more than a tiny marginal factor because its growth will guarantee a simultaneous effort to make wireless providers culpable.
Personally I think that would be the right thing to do: The net is ugly enough as it is without a bunch of haxxors and IRC DOSers anonymous launching assaults from public parks.
Eating one M&M tastes good, but when the initial rush of sweetness wears off, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I want to remedy with another M&M. Same thing, to a lesser degree with most chips.
Definitely depends on the person. Not to get too graphic about my chip lovin', but if I have bbq chips, I eat chip by chip and lick the flavour off it (which means that I get sick of it very quickly), yet I watch others literally ram a handful in their mouth at once. A lot of things like that definitely seem to be habit driven (I would wager that children who grew up with siblings in a competitive atmosphere get that "eat it before it's gone" attitude).
If I instead snack on a couple of ounces of thinly-sliced proscuitto, I'm satisfied and don't crave more.
Personally I find an apple or banana does the trick, regardless of whether it's carbs or not, because all it's really satiating is the psychological urge to perform the act of eating versus any real hunger. I would say that most North Americans literally don't even know what hunger feels like (I can't remember the last time I truly felt a serious angst for food).
This presumes that eating is done when one is "hungry", yet most psychologists agree that eating becomes a bad habit that is psychologically driven, and has absolutely nothing to do with biological hunger. You go to the movies and you eat a big bag of popcorn. You watch TV and eat a bag of chips. I've found myself countless times grabbing for something and then realizing that there is absolutely no reason why I am, except for old habits and a desire to do something distracting.
The cable companies should, rightfully, either shut off service or charge by the byte. Frankly, charging by the byte is ludicrous for the residential sector -- virtually everything is moving to flat rate. Consumers like flat rate because it allows you to budget far more easily.
It is? I'd say the exact opposite is happening, and people want to buy by consumption : My electricity is charged a base administration fee, and then a transport and generation fee based on consumption. The same thing for water and natural gas. My food bill varies based upon how much of a glutton I am, and whether I'm a name brand whore. My TV service, after much complaints by users, now lets me order only the channels I want rather than accepting some flat-rate "common denominator" package. My car uses gas based upon how much I drive, and my tires are warranted for 100,000km, so the sooner I get there the sooner they're replaced. I could continue with countless examples of "pay as you go".
There are very few services in our society that are flat rate. Why? Because flat rate users are often abusers: Just look throughout this discussion for all of the "It's my bandwidth to share!" BS -> That's what you get when you average consumption and flat rate it. These people are the people who would dump their feces in the commons given the chance, because they have no concept of what their actions mean to the whole as their perception is defined by their own little reality.
I don't think that anonymous wireless networks will take off for the same tragedy of the commons reason: It'll be a week before some 1337 IRC haxorz realize that it's a perfect venue to launch DOS attacks, propagate trojans, hack, etc. It'll be about 5 minutes after that before an army of lawyers busts down the door at AnonWiFi and requires them to maintain extensive security monitoring to ensure that their services aren't being absued, and it'll be about 5 minutes after that that AnonWiFi shuts down because of the costs. I can virtually guarantee that that will happen: The larger the user base, the more idiots that are looking for a reason to deficate in the commons.
I apologize if I've upset the shaky foundations of your magic elixir. If I have then I profoundly hope that you can maintain a firm grasp on your self-delusions. Please feel free to stalk me around, replying to all of my posts with such witty insults as "moron" (I like the "assron" and "morhole" too : Very grade 2): If that's what makes you tick then go nuts. Personally I enjoy it and look forward to more.
For the rest of us we have a rational, reasoned approach that takes any single source with a huge grain of salt : This article is one article in a SEA of tens of thousands of nutritional articles. Again, I will repeat that most nutritionists call it a sham to single out carbohydrates as the new evil (especially given that many meat and dairy fats are increasingly being show to be heart killers. Don't ask Mr. Atkins : I believe he's still recovering from his heart attack). Note that ANY nutritionists recommends that you lay off simple carbohydrates simply because it's low hanging fruit and is an easy way to reduce caloric intake (by cutting back on things like Coke). It's also a sham to lay on the couch and think that you'll become healthy merely by changing what you stuff your face with. Again, if this upsets your fantasy reality, then I apologize.
Honey Mustard salad dressing contains 28g of fat (which is about on par with a Big Mac, and is equal calories to eating about 60g of carbs or protein). 4.5g of that is saturated fat, which is a horrendously high measure by any calculation.
Slashdot Mirror
The "basics"? The reality is that such information is seldom of any purpose whatsoever for a software developer (though I'm curious which service in particular you can't find: Of the Microsoft installed services, all will get multiple hits in the MSDN library, and of course the MSDN Library clearly documents how services are launched from HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services, so the specific documentation is hardly necessary). Win32 provides APIs that you interact with, and the particular implementation on a specific Win32 implementation is largely irrelevant.
Of course, the MSDN is for developers and it presumes a rudimentary "Windows Business OS' For Dummies" type knowledge: One should already know how services work and how to perform basic system administration.
What the hell are you talking about? Clearly you have absolutely ZERO experience with the MSDN Library, but instead you just saw an avenue to spout some pro-Java, anti-MS BS.
The MSDN Library is very intelligently structured into a hierarchy of logical categories and subcategories, and if you have the local app you can limit your searches to specific branches (or combinations of branches). The documentation is, err, "Formal" references and "specifications", and actually has too FEW examples (nice attempt at trying for the highbrow "Java programmers SMRT, MS programmers dumb". It looks stupid, though, given the grossly incorrect representation of how the MSDN Library works).
I actually agree with the original guy that the regular expression portion of Microsoft's documentation is weak, and I would say right so : That is something that can be a science unto itself, and the Microsoft documentation couldn't do it justice without dedicating basically a book to it. Instead they give you an intro and point you to other resources. The correct choice in my opinion.
There is no need for a specialized separation between "LAN" and "internet" connectivity (otherwise a lot of large corporations had better go in and retrofit their entire organizations: Apparently they need a second `internet' port on every PC): Most homes facilitate this by a single, usually low end (i.e. not nForce2), dual-ported machine, or alternately via a router. The idea that every PC needs two ports is ludicrous.
Pet Peeve: I'm getting bloody tired of all of the "READ THE ARTICLE!" BS on Slashdot. As is evidenced by the preceeding paragraph THE ARTICLE IS LARGELY WRONG. Articles are just "Slashdot postings" with perhaps a slightly higher standard of spelling and integrity : Just because some guy put it in an "article" doesn't mean it's right, or that it can't be questioned.
I got a good laugh out of that moderation. :-) A do-gooder a little quick on the trigger.
The logic is that I can't "upgrade" my video card without throwing it out, just like an XBox person can throw out their XBox and buy a PC, or an XBox 2, when the time comes. Hell, I'll bet you that this motherboard alone, when it comes out (eventually), will cost as much as an XBox costs.
Sorry but your argument sounds like the argument of a vengeful, spiteful, jealous sideliner. i.e. "HA! I'll bet those stupid Geforce 3 buyers feel dumb now that the Geforce 4 is out!" "I'll bet those Athlon people feel dumb now that the Hammer is out!". Sorry, but I've seen that sort of self-justification far too long in too many message boards. I don't have an XBox (I do too much on my PC to neglect having a good rig), but I can certainly see the allure and logic of it.
Actually, apparently nvidia makes the integrated Ethernet port (integrated in the motherboard chipset), and 3COM makes the integrated, but circuitry isolated, "add-in" card. 3COM makes superb cards and chipsets.
heh, wonder how many XBox owners are kicking themselves for buying a PC you can't upgrade (easily).
I doubt very many. My video card alone cost more than an XBox...
What makes either of them "scary"? Passport is quite simply a method of "one user, one identity" (and for that it is brilliant. I recently was tasked with designing an authentication required system, and Passport was a heavy contender. The alternative, of course, is that most people just leave after being forced to create YET ANOTHER identity at yet another site), but the reality is that you can have as many identities as you want, and nothing whatsoever guarantees that you've actually given Microsoft the correct information at all (I don't recall them requiring photo ID to sign up for a Hotmail account yet).
In a nutshell this is just a centralized user/password authentication system, because without something like this becoming widespread sites that require authentication will continue to seem to be more of a nuisance to people : How many times have you followed a link to be brought to the New York Times page only to say "Aw forget it...." (maybe you got an account at one point, but it's among hundreds of accounts that you've long since forgotten the passwords to).
Your post sucks!
It would be a ridiculous protest. Like many cold, hard realities that have become apparent as of late, network television is paid for by advertisements. Don't watch advertiser sponsored programs if you have such an aversion to it. The reality is that as advertisement avoidance becomes more common, they either need to find a way to get the message through, or they need to charge subscription fees or fold up: There is no other way. Big companies don't sponsor television just because it's some sort of welfare program for the lazy.
Stuff it, okay?
I'm sorry, did I miss you being nominated (and elected) master debate leader? The point specifically dealt with communism, and the prior poster's incoherent ramblings about how ownership is artificial (by that regards you can say that all ownership is artificial. If I come to your house with a bat and kick you out, is that legitimate? I mean, really, all "ownership" is is a couple of papers filed with a government office). I would say that China, one of the very last communist strongholds, is perfectly relevant.
I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. I completely agree that an "expert system" database system is an awesome companion for, well, an expert. My only disagreement with the article is the idea that it can supplant an expert : I have no doubt that when the printing press was first created there were advocates claiming that it would make us all experts and obsolete any specialized field: I may be able to read a book on mechanics, but I'll trust an experienced mechanic over my own myopic, singular knowledge any day.
It's important to remember that on the opposite side are people passionately defending their system just as stubbornly, and it's very likely (because such is human nature) that when they punch in the facts and it spits out a grossly incorrectly, possibly even dangerous, diagnosis that it's quickly deleted. I doubt the doctor in question had a problem with a computer system doubting his findings, but rather just personal pride getting in the way when someone made him question his own ability: You can find the exact same reaction in some members of any knowledge based field. Tell that Linux guy at work that you think he's way in left field and has got it all wrong, because that's what you read on an AOL board...
Expert systems have been oversold for decades, and if you believed the predictions 20 years ago you would be sure that any knowledge based career would have been long obsoleted by such systems.
The same holds true of many professions : Have you ever had two "expert" programmers with diametrically opposed viewpoints who have each other's word used against each other? The outcome can be very ugly.
One important thing that you need to keep in mind when reading articles like this is that, regardless of whether it might be the first and only article on nutrition you've ever seen and it seems like a real revolution because it was submitted to Slashdot, it is one article in a sea of tens, or rather hundreds, of thousands of nutritional articles. I read the article and most of it comes across as so ridiculous (such as claims that North American obesity is on the rise because we're all trying to go low-fat...that almost made me choke up my double Big Mac I was slurping down), and so presumptive, that contrasted with the hundreds of other articles I've read on the subject (it most certainly isn't my profession, but health and well being does interest me so I keep up on it) it holds very little weight, pardon the pun. Saying "read the article!" is like some wanker yapping about how someone shouldn't see a doctor, they should just search Google : Just because someone `printed' something doesn't mean much.
My god, this has got to be one of the silliest posts I've ever seen on Slashdot (and that's saying a lot): In essence your argument boils down to "Their content is all crap, so therefore I should be able to copy it." How utterly ridiculous.
As far as the "false scarcity" BS: No, it's REAL scarcity because we, society in general, realized that without copyright protections a lot of things wouldn't get made in the first place. As such we offered up some basic legal protections for creators to profit from their work. You got a problem with that then either fight copyright legislation (realizing that, regardless of how foot thumpingly righteous you are about your insanely contradictory argument, that doesn't mean that you can write your own laws just because you disagree), or pack up and move to China. Enjoy your stay.
You really top off your argument with that final paragraph.
I find this especially humorous: I've run variants of 95, 98, ME, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP since August 31st, 1995, and I have never had my machine compromised (nor have I ever had a virus for that matter). A friend, a heavy Linux advocate, has had his Linux box rooted _3_TIMES_. I realize that in both cases we're probably outlyers in the sample spread, but your sample cases are ridiculous.
I personally can't wait to see how they will deal with the ad hoc wireless networks that will start springing up in public places.
It's pretty obvious: They'll sue the wireless provider for facilitating a crime. Anonymous wireless, and I guarantee this, will never become more than a tiny marginal factor because its growth will guarantee a simultaneous effort to make wireless providers culpable.
Personally I think that would be the right thing to do: The net is ugly enough as it is without a bunch of haxxors and IRC DOSers anonymous launching assaults from public parks.
Very nicely done. Of course you have that bastardized "Vitality" instead of Constitution, and where's your Charisma?
Eating one M&M tastes good, but when the initial rush of sweetness wears off, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I want to remedy with another M&M. Same thing, to a lesser degree with most chips.
Definitely depends on the person. Not to get too graphic about my chip lovin', but if I have bbq chips, I eat chip by chip and lick the flavour off it (which means that I get sick of it very quickly), yet I watch others literally ram a handful in their mouth at once. A lot of things like that definitely seem to be habit driven (I would wager that children who grew up with siblings in a competitive atmosphere get that "eat it before it's gone" attitude).
If I instead snack on a couple of ounces of thinly-sliced proscuitto, I'm satisfied and don't crave more.
Personally I find an apple or banana does the trick, regardless of whether it's carbs or not, because all it's really satiating is the psychological urge to perform the act of eating versus any real hunger. I would say that most North Americans literally don't even know what hunger feels like (I can't remember the last time I truly felt a serious angst for food).
This presumes that eating is done when one is "hungry", yet most psychologists agree that eating becomes a bad habit that is psychologically driven, and has absolutely nothing to do with biological hunger. You go to the movies and you eat a big bag of popcorn. You watch TV and eat a bag of chips. I've found myself countless times grabbing for something and then realizing that there is absolutely no reason why I am, except for old habits and a desire to do something distracting.
The cable companies should, rightfully, either shut off service or charge by the byte. Frankly, charging by the byte is ludicrous for the residential sector -- virtually everything is moving to flat rate. Consumers like flat rate because it allows you to budget far more easily.
It is? I'd say the exact opposite is happening, and people want to buy by consumption : My electricity is charged a base administration fee, and then a transport and generation fee based on consumption. The same thing for water and natural gas. My food bill varies based upon how much of a glutton I am, and whether I'm a name brand whore. My TV service, after much complaints by users, now lets me order only the channels I want rather than accepting some flat-rate "common denominator" package. My car uses gas based upon how much I drive, and my tires are warranted for 100,000km, so the sooner I get there the sooner they're replaced. I could continue with countless examples of "pay as you go".
There are very few services in our society that are flat rate. Why? Because flat rate users are often abusers: Just look throughout this discussion for all of the "It's my bandwidth to share!" BS -> That's what you get when you average consumption and flat rate it. These people are the people who would dump their feces in the commons given the chance, because they have no concept of what their actions mean to the whole as their perception is defined by their own little reality.
I don't think that anonymous wireless networks will take off for the same tragedy of the commons reason: It'll be a week before some 1337 IRC haxorz realize that it's a perfect venue to launch DOS attacks, propagate trojans, hack, etc. It'll be about 5 minutes after that before an army of lawyers busts down the door at AnonWiFi and requires them to maintain extensive security monitoring to ensure that their services aren't being absued, and it'll be about 5 minutes after that that AnonWiFi shuts down because of the costs. I can virtually guarantee that that will happen: The larger the user base, the more idiots that are looking for a reason to deficate in the commons.
Dear AC Stalker,
I apologize if I've upset the shaky foundations of your magic elixir. If I have then I profoundly hope that you can maintain a firm grasp on your self-delusions. Please feel free to stalk me around, replying to all of my posts with such witty insults as "moron" (I like the "assron" and "morhole" too : Very grade 2): If that's what makes you tick then go nuts. Personally I enjoy it and look forward to more.
For the rest of us we have a rational, reasoned approach that takes any single source with a huge grain of salt : This article is one article in a SEA of tens of thousands of nutritional articles. Again, I will repeat that most nutritionists call it a sham to single out carbohydrates as the new evil (especially given that many meat and dairy fats are increasingly being show to be heart killers. Don't ask Mr. Atkins : I believe he's still recovering from his heart attack). Note that ANY nutritionists recommends that you lay off simple carbohydrates simply because it's low hanging fruit and is an easy way to reduce caloric intake (by cutting back on things like Coke). It's also a sham to lay on the couch and think that you'll become healthy merely by changing what you stuff your face with. Again, if this upsets your fantasy reality, then I apologize.
Um....I think that's unbelievably obvious so I'll just ignore it.
Honey Mustard salad dressing contains 28g of fat (which is about on par with a Big Mac, and is equal calories to eating about 60g of carbs or protein). 4.5g of that is saturated fat, which is a horrendously high measure by any calculation.