IIS 4 is installed in NT 4 by installing the option pack, and the default page is a "Hello, thanks for installing the option pack" type page. It means it's a stock machine that's probably busy spreading trojans.
I think you're pretty broadly speaking for everyone based on your own observations. Personally I love shopping online for items that I won't get more than a box feel anyways: Computer hardware (in the past 4 years the most I've bought offline is a stick of RAM that I needed pronto), home electronics, etc. I'm the type that peruses the various boards finding the best of the best at a particular price point, and it often is the cast that the local ElectroMegaMart doesn't have in stock a model 2732-AV2 so they try to pimp whatever POS they do have. Online I can find specifically what I want, rather than "What they have in stock". Shipping wise I have NEVER had a problem, and 99% of the time it's at the door the next day. The only things I won't buy online are clothes (well..maybe. To be honest I've never thought about it as an option) or a car, but everything else is fair game.
The only reason that so many.Bombs have occured is because of the gold rush bubble mentality, with every marginal, half-rate, low-profit e-retailer burdening itself with all the assemblage that goes along with being public entities (lawyers, CEOs, COOs, CIOs, accountants by the dozens, etc), rather than operating from the ground and growing. It says nothing for the general state of sales on the net (which last I heard continue to grow by the billions), and I think a much healthier resurgence is in store for the coming year or so.
This is totally off-topic, but you know I have to say that I'm surprized at how LITTLE coverage of 9/11 there actually has been in Western media. I know this may seem rather odd, but the significance of that event is staggering and it keeps hitting you over and over again. I watched a classic Saturday Night Live the other night and the in the intro they show the WTCs about 5 times, beautifully towering over Manhattan. As a sidenote: I saw another SNL intro where they apparently replaced all incidents of the WTCs with shots of the Empire State building...
2001-09-11 (ISO 8601) was a tragic loss of life, but at the same time it was more than just a loss of life (let's face it: Lives are lost by the thousands every day): It destroyed something we all were in awe of.
I've noticed an odd proliferation of people who seem to associate google with "using the net". i.e. I walked up to the desk of a peer computer professional and told him about a great computer hardware site, to which he pops up google and punches in the URL, following the "uh...do you just want the website?" first link. The only reason he did this was that it's become a habit to him (meaning lots of extra ad impressions for Google).
Unreal Tournament was a more enjoyable game because it had better gameplay, but technically it was quite inferior to Quake 3 (indeed it is more in competition with Quake 2). Carmack is a technology man, and the technology that he creates does tend to be the best.
In the past couple of years the general tax rate of Canada has been declining and is less than most European countries. Indeed in some lower tax areas of Canada the total tax load is lower than some higher tax areas of the US.
Uh, so you'd rather they didn't scan it and just pretended that nothing was wrong until the day it's under water? The reality is that China wants to build a dam (it is shitty, but at the same time I suppose it's better than a massive coal electric plant with no emissions controls), so whatever anyone can do to preserve what is going to be destroyed is heroic.
Not only is the eye less sensitive to blue (as about 40 posts have pointed out), but have you ever noticed that the eye (at least mine) has more trouble focusing on blue? i.e. driving at night I'm always baffled by lit corporate signs that are a deep blue that just looks blurry and fuzzy, while a red sign at the same distance is crisp and clear. Of course it could be just a fault in my own eyes, but I've heard from other people who've noticed the same.
Tis very lightweight. Even the way it glosses over things like power consumption of internal peripherals and add-in cards (i.e. some hard drives, soundcards and video boards consume lots of electricity and therefore emnate lots of heat, limiting the air cooling potential in a closed case).
Before the 20th response "correcting" this: I meant median, not average. Indeed I stated median, and further clarified it by saying that 1/2 of the students fell below 112 (thereby clarifying my statement that it's the median), but I inadvertently left a prior reference to "average". I shall pray to the gods to forgive me. Dear Taco please forgive me!
Secondly, I am NOT saying that a degree has no value, but the purpose of the degree is to give you the knowledge, and it's the _knowledge_ and _skills_ that should stand on their on, not the pursuit of it (i.e. most CS grads who went into it because they love the field will likely be very knowledgeable). Imagine, if you will, going to the race track, but rather than actually racing the cars (getting quantitative metrics of their relative value), they instead talk about the number of hours they put into designing them, with each of them pulling out sheets showing the pedigree of the iron and the gamma-quotient of the paint job. The `noble pursuit' justification for a degree is of dubious value as well given that many students use university as a way to put off the "real world", rather than as a great laborious pursuit.
Firstly, as I stated in another posts this has absolutely nothing to do with my personal education level (amazing how personal such a thing is to most people, which makes the arguing against it all the more humorous. If you argue that a University degree has limited relevance, you must not have one. Extrapolating that therefore anyone who argues FOR a degree must do so purely because they have one?).
Secondly, this is not a professional board, nor am I writing a letter to the board: Apologies for the typo (as I stated in another message I went back and fixed from average to median [actually swapping MEAN for MEDIAN] but failed to switch the other incident of average. Damn. I guess I'm not going to get that big Slashdot job now that I always dreamed of.
I've also seen lots of posts containing improper grammar, random (or missing) apostrophes, tense and singular/plural conflicts, and plain old misspellings.
Yeah and that certainly must be the "non-university" people by your, and others, bizarro correlation. EVERYONE has typos and transposed words on here because, despite some funny beliefs, it really doesn't matter.
Actually I'm overly-educated and a member of several professional organizations (if it has the slightest inkling of relevance), however I've had to argue the merits of coworkers and potential hires based upon grossly flawed-perceptions regarding the merits of degrees (not so much CS degrees where there is practical knowledge to go along with it, but rather completely disassociated degrees where hiring agents presume a more skilled potential employee in a completely different field).
Smart people don't value the paper, the value what the paper represents. To some it represents time and dedication.
It's funny to see this on Slashdot where MCSE certifications (which take considerable time and effort, even if it is an exercise in memorization of trivial, never used facts) are laughed at. Let's face it: People who got degrees as a natural progression of their upper-middle class existence want to maintain the value of it by waving their hadn and talking about vague, unsubstantiated things: Some sort of etheral knowledge they gained via failures-in-their-field professors and the same textbooks that Joe Anybody can get at a local store. Claims about "sociology" or "culture" are a riot too, as again Joe Average often has equal knowledge in disparate fields.
It helps you recognize good form from bad form. Formal knowledge leads to understanding structures and architectures and other complex things.
All apologies, but this is total bullshit (see what I said about about etheral claims of the advantages of a degree). I've known Professional Engineers and Phds who are, parden the expression, total fucking morons. Of course I've met some who are brilliant, but the point is that the designation alone has extremely little real value (just like an MCSE).
The cold hard fact is this: There are smart people who have a desire to learn on this planet. Some of those people go to university, some go to college (for financial reasons, time reasons, locality, whatever), and some drop out of Grade 6 to pursue their soap box engineering career. However there are not-so-smart people who have no desire to learn, and they have little "smarts", yet they successfully complete university and post degrees. Neither has a distinct correlation with the other.
BTW: Another bullshit claim that is usually paraded is that a university degree (regardless of whether it's an arts major of philosophy) is a sign of intelligence (and is therefore relevant to any job): The median IQ of Canadian university students (who test among the best in the world) is 112. That's the AVERAGE (meaning, for those of you falling under 112, that 50% of students are below 112). That's pretty low in the grand scheme of things, once again proving that a university degree is more a sign of dedication towards fulfilling a certain societal standard than any biological advantage.
I have a US Robotics 9600 HST in the junk pile downstairs that I'd happily donate. It could connect at 9600bps with another US Robotics modem using the HST proprietary protocol, but connected at 2400 with all others. Because of this, and the relative popularity of USR, most big BBS' had separate dial-in lines for HST modem users to get super-quantum speed.
As long as they don't make the enemy AI too much smarter. UT already kills me dead on it's highest settings.
Yup, 100% agree with that. However there would be an improvement if they made the AI more realistic rather than smarter: i.e. you often hear about the computer "cheating" in games because instead of modelling vision (with all of the flaws of it) & perception the computer has XYZ coordinates and if they fall within a range boom you're dead.
Well I think you have to liberally interpret what I said with a bit of reason. My point is moreso that there is a conscious choice to the false information people give usually, and conscious choices have a logic to them that can often give away the falsifier. Take a look at a of less-skilled poker players for an example.
Well the context of the story was that the virus writers are usually incredibly dumb, and they have a habit of putting real information to brag to their friends (and enemies) about what they'd done. Imagine going to all that trouble and no one believes that it was really you.
Having said that, people often reveal a lot about themselves even when they include fake information (i.e. the classic is the "opposite" syndrome: If you're a young male say that you're an elderly woman. It doesn't take a genius to flip them).
For both of them the balance of computations is very heavily weighted towards the video end of things, and as such at realistic resolutions the video card (with GPU) is a limiting factor before the CPU is. If, on the other hand, they had much more advanced AI or actually modelled the physics of the buildings (i.e. collapsing walls, etc.) then it might make more sense.
SirCam contains this text in its code: "SirCam Version 1.0 Copyright 2001 2rP Made in / Hecho en - Cuitzeo, Michoacan Mexico."
Smith has a hunch that the author of SirCam is or was in Cuitzeo, and is probably a student. Cuitzeo is located 16 miles from Morelia City, which boasts a large university.
Talk about a blinding flash of the glaringly obvious...
He was the worst part of the movie IMHO. My wife thought he did a fine job, but he looked like a Keanu Reeve's impersonator (i.e. horrendously stiff acting).
That's a double-edged sword though: Often older movies are rated higher than they should be either by people for whom it was "their" generation's movie (see Star Wars for a great example of this), or by kids looking to be different so they reach into the past for something to respect. I know more people who will give accolades to anything older for no reason than I know people who discount older creations because of their age.
So, why was it that the "fellowship" (a group comprised of completely random individuals, it seemed) were so bitter over losing him?
The movie actually got it right: To the hobbits Gandalf was just some old guy with some great fireworks who came to town now and again: They did not comprehend his significance to the world at large. Part of the book is the realization of Gandalf's importance by Frodo.
People who are seeing LoTR now will probably carry it with them as the "best film" like baggage many years from now. Personally I think the Star Wars series is tripe, but obviously at the time it hit people the right way so they carry it with them (and convert others to see what they see) and that's the nature of things like that. The Godfather is an okay series, but it really isn't _that_ great, but again to people for whom it was great at the time they carry it with them. Every year a local radio station does a "top 100 songs of all time", and of course like 50% of the songs are this year's songs, but almost every year the "top" song is "Stairway to Heaven". Give me a break. That's the "in my era music was better" influence.
You have got to be kidding. Firstly, how many supposedly excellent "fantasy" movies have there been? COUNTLESS. How many TV series "fantasy" shows have been praised and given accolades because of their authentic portrayal of their original books? Dozens.
Actually that's entirely wrong: Fantasty movies are significantly harder to turn into a credible film. The majority of fantasy adaptations were brutally panned.
Slashdot Mirror
IIS 4 is installed in NT 4 by installing the option pack, and the default page is a "Hello, thanks for installing the option pack" type page. It means it's a stock machine that's probably busy spreading trojans.
I think you're pretty broadly speaking for everyone based on your own observations. Personally I love shopping online for items that I won't get more than a box feel anyways: Computer hardware (in the past 4 years the most I've bought offline is a stick of RAM that I needed pronto), home electronics, etc. I'm the type that peruses the various boards finding the best of the best at a particular price point, and it often is the cast that the local ElectroMegaMart doesn't have in stock a model 2732-AV2 so they try to pimp whatever POS they do have. Online I can find specifically what I want, rather than "What they have in stock". Shipping wise I have NEVER had a problem, and 99% of the time it's at the door the next day. The only things I won't buy online are clothes (well..maybe. To be honest I've never thought about it as an option) or a car, but everything else is fair game.
The only reason that so many .Bombs have occured is because of the gold rush bubble mentality, with every marginal, half-rate, low-profit e-retailer burdening itself with all the assemblage that goes along with being public entities (lawyers, CEOs, COOs, CIOs, accountants by the dozens, etc), rather than operating from the ground and growing. It says nothing for the general state of sales on the net (which last I heard continue to grow by the billions), and I think a much healthier resurgence is in store for the coming year or so.
Otherwise known as a "pyramid scheme".
This is totally off-topic, but you know I have to say that I'm surprized at how LITTLE coverage of 9/11 there actually has been in Western media. I know this may seem rather odd, but the significance of that event is staggering and it keeps hitting you over and over again. I watched a classic Saturday Night Live the other night and the in the intro they show the WTCs about 5 times, beautifully towering over Manhattan. As a sidenote: I saw another SNL intro where they apparently replaced all incidents of the WTCs with shots of the Empire State building...
2001-09-11 (ISO 8601) was a tragic loss of life, but at the same time it was more than just a loss of life (let's face it: Lives are lost by the thousands every day): It destroyed something we all were in awe of.
I've noticed an odd proliferation of people who seem to associate google with "using the net". i.e. I walked up to the desk of a peer computer professional and told him about a great computer hardware site, to which he pops up google and punches in the URL, following the "uh...do you just want the website?" first link. The only reason he did this was that it's become a habit to him (meaning lots of extra ad impressions for Google).
Unreal Tournament was a more enjoyable game because it had better gameplay, but technically it was quite inferior to Quake 3 (indeed it is more in competition with Quake 2). Carmack is a technology man, and the technology that he creates does tend to be the best.
In the past couple of years the general tax rate of Canada has been declining and is less than most European countries. Indeed in some lower tax areas of Canada the total tax load is lower than some higher tax areas of the US.
Uh, so you'd rather they didn't scan it and just pretended that nothing was wrong until the day it's under water? The reality is that China wants to build a dam (it is shitty, but at the same time I suppose it's better than a massive coal electric plant with no emissions controls), so whatever anyone can do to preserve what is going to be destroyed is heroic.
Not only is the eye less sensitive to blue (as about 40 posts have pointed out), but have you ever noticed that the eye (at least mine) has more trouble focusing on blue? i.e. driving at night I'm always baffled by lit corporate signs that are a deep blue that just looks blurry and fuzzy, while a red sign at the same distance is crisp and clear. Of course it could be just a fault in my own eyes, but I've heard from other people who've noticed the same.
Tis very lightweight. Even the way it glosses over things like power consumption of internal peripherals and add-in cards (i.e. some hard drives, soundcards and video boards consume lots of electricity and therefore emnate lots of heat, limiting the air cooling potential in a closed case).
Before the 20th response "correcting" this: I meant median, not average. Indeed I stated median, and further clarified it by saying that 1/2 of the students fell below 112 (thereby clarifying my statement that it's the median), but I inadvertently left a prior reference to "average". I shall pray to the gods to forgive me. Dear Taco please forgive me!
Secondly, I am NOT saying that a degree has no value, but the purpose of the degree is to give you the knowledge, and it's the _knowledge_ and _skills_ that should stand on their on, not the pursuit of it (i.e. most CS grads who went into it because they love the field will likely be very knowledgeable). Imagine, if you will, going to the race track, but rather than actually racing the cars (getting quantitative metrics of their relative value), they instead talk about the number of hours they put into designing them, with each of them pulling out sheets showing the pedigree of the iron and the gamma-quotient of the paint job. The `noble pursuit' justification for a degree is of dubious value as well given that many students use university as a way to put off the "real world", rather than as a great laborious pursuit.
Firstly, as I stated in another posts this has absolutely nothing to do with my personal education level (amazing how personal such a thing is to most people, which makes the arguing against it all the more humorous. If you argue that a University degree has limited relevance, you must not have one. Extrapolating that therefore anyone who argues FOR a degree must do so purely because they have one?).
Secondly, this is not a professional board, nor am I writing a letter to the board: Apologies for the typo (as I stated in another message I went back and fixed from average to median [actually swapping MEAN for MEDIAN] but failed to switch the other incident of average. Damn. I guess I'm not going to get that big Slashdot job now that I always dreamed of.
I've also seen lots of posts containing improper grammar, random (or missing) apostrophes, tense and singular/plural conflicts, and plain old misspellings.
Yeah and that certainly must be the "non-university" people by your, and others, bizarro correlation. EVERYONE has typos and transposed words on here because, despite some funny beliefs, it really doesn't matter.
Actually I'm overly-educated and a member of several professional organizations (if it has the slightest inkling of relevance), however I've had to argue the merits of coworkers and potential hires based upon grossly flawed-perceptions regarding the merits of degrees (not so much CS degrees where there is practical knowledge to go along with it, but rather completely disassociated degrees where hiring agents presume a more skilled potential employee in a completely different field).
Smart people don't value the paper, the value what the paper represents. To some it represents time and dedication.
It's funny to see this on Slashdot where MCSE certifications (which take considerable time and effort, even if it is an exercise in memorization of trivial, never used facts) are laughed at. Let's face it: People who got degrees as a natural progression of their upper-middle class existence want to maintain the value of it by waving their hadn and talking about vague, unsubstantiated things: Some sort of etheral knowledge they gained via failures-in-their-field professors and the same textbooks that Joe Anybody can get at a local store. Claims about "sociology" or "culture" are a riot too, as again Joe Average often has equal knowledge in disparate fields.
It helps you recognize good form from bad form. Formal knowledge leads to understanding structures and architectures and other complex things.
All apologies, but this is total bullshit (see what I said about about etheral claims of the advantages of a degree). I've known Professional Engineers and Phds who are, parden the expression, total fucking morons. Of course I've met some who are brilliant, but the point is that the designation alone has extremely little real value (just like an MCSE).
The cold hard fact is this: There are smart people who have a desire to learn on this planet. Some of those people go to university, some go to college (for financial reasons, time reasons, locality, whatever), and some drop out of Grade 6 to pursue their soap box engineering career. However there are not-so-smart people who have no desire to learn, and they have little "smarts", yet they successfully complete university and post degrees. Neither has a distinct correlation with the other.
BTW: Another bullshit claim that is usually paraded is that a university degree (regardless of whether it's an arts major of philosophy) is a sign of intelligence (and is therefore relevant to any job): The median IQ of Canadian university students (who test among the best in the world) is 112. That's the AVERAGE (meaning, for those of you falling under 112, that 50% of students are below 112). That's pretty low in the grand scheme of things, once again proving that a university degree is more a sign of dedication towards fulfilling a certain societal standard than any biological advantage.
I have a US Robotics 9600 HST in the junk pile downstairs that I'd happily donate. It could connect at 9600bps with another US Robotics modem using the HST proprietary protocol, but connected at 2400 with all others. Because of this, and the relative popularity of USR, most big BBS' had separate dial-in lines for HST modem users to get super-quantum speed.
As long as they don't make the enemy AI too much smarter. UT already kills me dead on it's highest settings.
Yup, 100% agree with that. However there would be an improvement if they made the AI more realistic rather than smarter: i.e. you often hear about the computer "cheating" in games because instead of modelling vision (with all of the flaws of it) & perception the computer has XYZ coordinates and if they fall within a range boom you're dead.
Well I think you have to liberally interpret what I said with a bit of reason. My point is moreso that there is a conscious choice to the false information people give usually, and conscious choices have a logic to them that can often give away the falsifier. Take a look at a of less-skilled poker players for an example.
Well the context of the story was that the virus writers are usually incredibly dumb, and they have a habit of putting real information to brag to their friends (and enemies) about what they'd done. Imagine going to all that trouble and no one believes that it was really you.
Having said that, people often reveal a lot about themselves even when they include fake information (i.e. the classic is the "opposite" syndrome: If you're a young male say that you're an elderly woman. It doesn't take a genius to flip them).
Have you played q3 or UT on a sweet athalon?
For both of them the balance of computations is very heavily weighted towards the video end of things, and as such at realistic resolutions the video card (with GPU) is a limiting factor before the CPU is. If, on the other hand, they had much more advanced AI or actually modelled the physics of the buildings (i.e. collapsing walls, etc.) then it might make more sense.
There are many who would say that there is little useful purpose behind distributed code cracking or filtering random space noise.
SirCam contains this text in its code: "SirCam Version 1.0 Copyright 2001 2rP Made in / Hecho en - Cuitzeo, Michoacan Mexico."
Smith has a hunch that the author of SirCam is or was in Cuitzeo, and is probably a student. Cuitzeo is located 16 miles from Morelia City, which boasts a large university.
Talk about a blinding flash of the glaringly obvious...
He was the worst part of the movie IMHO. My wife thought he did a fine job, but he looked like a Keanu Reeve's impersonator (i.e. horrendously stiff acting).
That's a double-edged sword though: Often older movies are rated higher than they should be either by people for whom it was "their" generation's movie (see Star Wars for a great example of this), or by kids looking to be different so they reach into the past for something to respect. I know more people who will give accolades to anything older for no reason than I know people who discount older creations because of their age.
So, why was it that the "fellowship" (a group comprised of completely random individuals, it seemed) were so bitter over losing him?
The movie actually got it right: To the hobbits Gandalf was just some old guy with some great fireworks who came to town now and again: They did not comprehend his significance to the world at large. Part of the book is the realization of Gandalf's importance by Frodo.
People who are seeing LoTR now will probably carry it with them as the "best film" like baggage many years from now. Personally I think the Star Wars series is tripe, but obviously at the time it hit people the right way so they carry it with them (and convert others to see what they see) and that's the nature of things like that. The Godfather is an okay series, but it really isn't _that_ great, but again to people for whom it was great at the time they carry it with them. Every year a local radio station does a "top 100 songs of all time", and of course like 50% of the songs are this year's songs, but almost every year the "top" song is "Stairway to Heaven". Give me a break. That's the "in my era music was better" influence.
You have got to be kidding. Firstly, how many supposedly excellent "fantasy" movies have there been? COUNTLESS. How many TV series "fantasy" shows have been praised and given accolades because of their authentic portrayal of their original books? Dozens.
Actually that's entirely wrong: Fantasty movies are significantly harder to turn into a credible film. The majority of fantasy adaptations were brutally panned.