I'm still waiting for them to bring over their window manager and desktop from IRIX. That was my favorite part of workingon an SGI. If I could get the full IRIX feel out of my linux box I'd be in heaven! Of course then there'd be less reason to get IRIX instead of Linux so I doubt they'll do it.
Odd, just this morning I was helping my business partner write a piece for the local paper about how the future of the internet will affect our area. Other than my standard line about how predicting the future of technology is a foolish waste of time I did contribute the slightly usefull idea of neurocomputing.
Which got me thinking about how things such as telepathy and other ESP phenomenon could be replicated easily if we used our bodies as the UI to computers in the future. Imagine just having video signals fed straight into your visual cortex. Or being able to take a photo just by looking at something. The possibilities are endless and unthinkable.
This also reminds me of my comment I made about that pen mouse last week. And now that I'm home I have my resources handy to quote. Specifically in the June 1995 (#59) issue of Circuit Cellar Ink they ran an article called "An Eye-controlled Mouse" which was presented as a study in signal condtioning. Basically they used EEG signals (as the guy in this article passes off as unpractical) picked up through 3 sensors on your head. This was fed to a simple pic based micro controller whihch converted the brain signals so that they could be fed to a serial port and looked like signals from a standard mouse. Simple circuit, simple code. But you do need the eeg sensors to pull it off. That was what kept me from trying.
Actually there was an article in "Circuit Cellar Ink" (whose website escapes me at the moment) about two or three years ago with plans for just such a device. The only problem was you needed three EKG sensors to use it. IIRC it tracked where you looked and used blinks as clicks. It was developed for disabled use but I still want to build one for fun someday. If anyone is interested e-mail me and I'll lookup the article next week when I'm back home again (I'm on the road this week...but I still need my daily/. fix!)
I noticed the missing logo earlier today while doing a little searching on infoseek. I still refuse to use infoseek.go.com and still type infoseek.com just out of pure stuborness.
The only thing that bothers me is I though go.com was going after goto.com for the similarity. I didn't realize it was the other way around. Or did the courts just turn around and bite the guys who brought the suit up in the first place?
I think the big problem is people not shopping around for their doctors well. Before I had LASIK my eyes were pretty bad, I could make out the E on the chart and could guess some of the letters on the line below it but that was about all. I don't have my last prescreption handy and don't remember exactly how bad I was.
I've been waiting quite a while for many of the clinical trials to finish. My normal eye care doctor also had been watching the trials and was trained in RK but refused to use it. Recently he told me I should look into LASIK and I did. With a vengence.
I spent over 4 hours talking with the doctor who I eventually had do my surgury. I spoke with nearly a dozen of the over 1,000 patients he had already treated. Oh, and I went to the most respectable clinic in my area to find him. (Cleveland Clinic for reference) I asked him flat out about many of the possible outcomes and complications and he did NOT try to sugar coat anything. He was very upfront and honest. After that I researched the research and statistics that were available regarding LASIK. Specifically I got the statistics on the procedures he had performed and the statistics of the people who had trained him. I was willing to play the odds based on what I saw.
Oh I should also mention that he warned me beforehand that my pupils were borderline on being large enough to cause problems with Night Vision.
If given the chance again I would definatly have the surgure again. I can now read the 20/20 line as if it was a book in front of my face, and the 20/15 isn't much harder. I can do better but that depends on the lighting. In bright light I feel like an Eagle. In dim light I'm still 20/20 but can notice some haze around light sources. (Still not as bad as the bluring when my glasses used to get dirty [10 minutes after washing them]).
However, I do not like driving at night any more than necessary expect in brightly lit areas. As long as I concentrate I don't notice the halos around headlights. But if I let my concentration down and my eyes start to relax it can become very distracting. (I am easily distracted however!).
Overall If you are thinking about surgury give LASIK a good strong look but be sure to do your OWN research and not take anyone else's at face value. I've seen plenty of explanations of the same statistics that are damn convincing in both directions. Get the stats yourself and make your own decesions.
I haven't read the articles too closely yet but I wonder how reliably they tracked them.
After all pretty much any hacker raised durring the cold war period would love to make it look like they were coming from Russia. Soon as the trackers got that far you'd hope their just going to jump on it! Of course now we've got better targets to hide behind but someone from the proper time period with the right mindset....
Heck I see this as great news, MS finally considers Linux to be a big enough competitor to start the FUD flowing freely and openly. With all the other things they've said and had said against them lately this can only help the cause.
IMHO we should all down a few v-beers and call this a victory.
This is the same reason I am disgusted by what Bill Gates considers his contribuitions to "Charity". Giving MS software to elementary and secondary schools? It's worse than the whole IE integration thing.
Sure he gives out some software that costs him nothing but could have been sold for several thousand dollars. And in return he gets a generation of kids who've been force fed his applications since the first time they touch a keyboard. If they don't get exposed to anything else then why would they even want to think about anything but MS solutions.
Of course the one saving grace is that kids more and more are questioning what they learn in school and questioning the schools themselves. My only hope is that kids revolt and turn agains MS because it's "what they get in school".
Ok, this could be the fact that it's saturday and I've had a couple of beers. Or it could just be that I feel like getting something off my chest and this is at least a slightly related place to vent it.
(I really should post this anon but..)
OSS can't make it mainstream because it just dosen't make enough work for people. With 98 and NT on the desktop and for servers you're practically guaranteed that your tech and MIS guys are going to have something to do every hour that they're willing to contribuite. With OSS they just sit there and live the dream of a future with less work. Unless they're good enough and motivated enough to hack on the software and improve it.
One of the companies I've worked for has been running an SGI (not quite OSS but they're coming around) since 94 and a linux box since 93. The only time either of them have been rebooted (other than kernel upgrades..and that linux was still running a pre 2.0 kernel last time I checked) was when they had to be physically moved from one room to another! On the other hand at the proding of the marketing manager MIS tested the viability of moving the website from that SGI to an NT server.
The NT server required constant babysitting. Several reboots a day because it would hang, and nothing but broken promises when it comes to the ease of developing web based applications. The day I tought the admin of that machine how to program in perl for the SGI he practically unplugged the NT machine and started filling out the return forms! He coulden't belive how much simpler it was. Of course he came from a tradional CS background rooted heavily in Unix.
Then again even the desktop designer who came from a Mac background and was a diehard GUI fan admitted it was easier than working with ASP on the NT machine.
Ok, I'm rambling and not making sense anymore (or so I'm guessing) so I'll cut it short. Bye bye karma for this one.
Ok, so no one took me to court, sued me, or tried to bring civil charges against me. But my original college hosted web site was unfairly banned because of a link.
I was one of (if not the) first person to have a web page at Ohio University. My page was up before the guy who setup our first web server had his up. So to try and show what was possible I created a site (on OU's first linux box) to host local area artists. I had a few of my photos, a few of my bosses paintings, and a link to a CS student's "body art" page.
On his body art page he had photos of his..."Prince Albert" go look it up if you don't know, all I'll say is ouch! So my homepage linked to my art site which in turn linked to the "Body art" page which linked to its creators photos of his own personal body art.
Well finally my college within the university (Visual Communications) gets with the program and creates their own website including a list of links to student created pages. (A bunch done for a "web design" class that taught to create large imagemaps in photoshop and called them webpages, and a few independly created pages). I asked for months to get listed on the indepent student pages.
Finally after nearly a year I got an answer why. Apparantly the head of VisCom and visited my site and declared that it contained pornography. Amazed I scheduled an appointment with him to find out where he found porn on my site!
He then explained how he found the photos of the "Prince Albert". Needless to say I was amazed. After nearly two hours of arguing he finally agreed to link to my site only because the linux box that hosted the art site was being taken down because the CS department coulden't find anyone in their college to take over as sysadmin once the original sysadmin graduated and went to work for a local ISP.
While I will agree that thin-clients are probably a cheaper and easier way to go for corporate computing. I do have to strongly disagree with your opinion that the average person should not have to know what's going on inside their computer.
Just look at our highways for a perfect example of what happens when industry dumbs down technology to the point that people don't have to understand it to use it. Too many people can't so simple maintance on their own cars, and too many of those cars are now dangers to other people on the road.
I'm not saying people are going to die because they can't work on their computer. But I would hate to see the computer industry fall into this trap of complancy. The past few years we've seen great steps forward in educating the GP about computers, how the work, and how to get the most out of them. It would be a MAJOR loss to take a step back and keep them from even seeing that they are using a computer.
Gee, maybe I am a bit odd but I've always wanted a cardboard box computer. I remember trying to save up to get the parts for one over 8 years ago. I planned on building the biggest baddest computer I'd ever used and the putting it in a cardboard box so no one would suspect how big and bad it was.
Baybe I just love surprises, but I always though it would be realy cool. Oh, and blinken lights can never be downplayed! I still feel left out because I don't have an LCD panel on my system and I no longer have a free parallel port for my 8LED status lights (That did the night rider thing based on load)
That both of the articles cited in this posting are almost exactly the same? Right to the point of being almost word for word copies of each other.
I don't know if MSNBC copied from ZDNet or the other way around, but either way it makes one wonder where these "journalists" are going for their info. Almost makes me wonder if someone is spoonfeeding it to them.
I'm all for free linking but the way this movie-list is linking is IMHO not only in very bad taste it does infringe on IP rights. If he were just linking to the page which Universal had the trailers posted on I would stand up and fight for him just as loudly and proudly as anyone.
But, he dosen't link to any pages on Universal's site. Only to the.MOV files themselves. Which is just as bad as if someone linked to one of my copyrighted photographs to display as their own on their website.
All URL's are not created equally. Admittedly a movie trailer is a bit different than a photograph. It's not like he's modifying the trailers to remove Universals name and copyright info. I say if the work of art is clearly identified within itself as being copyrighted and is available on the net through a simple URL then you don't have a leg to stand on legally. It may be in horribly bad taste and exceptionally poor nettiquit but should not be illegal. If that work of art though does not or can not carry it's copyright information within itself then linking to it without giving credit is not only bad taste and all that but should also be illegal.
And as many have said before. If Universal wanted to keep links out they could. The law should not be used to protect the lazy from their own ignorance.
Could this be it? Could this be the moment all geeks across the world have been waiting for? Something that only we can save the helpless clueless public from? I dunno.
Personally I think they're going about it all wrong. Anyone who needs a refresher about just how far up their own butt the gov't got their head when it comes to the internet should go back and read "The Cuckoos Egg" again. They don't need to watch civilian traffic. That's the public's problem. What they need to watch and guard much more carfully is the very thing this proposal leaves out...government and military networks. That's what they need to be worried about. So what if rogue terrorist hackers from bolivia hack into Bank One and steal every last penny. That's the banks problem and they should be on the watch for it just like any other sysadmin. What the feds need to do is keep their nose in their own business since they obviously don't spend enough time watching their own backs.
Not to mention going up to a video store and renting a movie is a LOT quicker and easier for me than going up to a CC.
Video Store: Literally across the street, Cute counter help, Late fee's are my own problem - I know up front when I rent when it's due back. I have no problem taking responsibility for getting it there.
CC: almost an hour to the closest one, quite possibly the most annoying staff out of any store I've ever been to, very porly informed staff, pushy unhelpfull staff.
And that's just the renting vs. buying at CC!
Add in the way that most DIVIX don't have widescreen, (Forget about HD 1:19 TV's are here now) some can't go silver, and the idea of "pay per view" makes me look for a discounted price, not a higher one! This is no bonus, it's (* I'll censor myself here*).
First off A quick hi to Abigail who I still quote on my homepage even though I haven't known your addresss for almost 4 years.
Anways, the arguments against my argument are almost the same point I was trying to make. (I should just give up on written language and try writing comments in source code, less ambiguity)
My problem is with giving people technology that they can't or won't handle. Having been in charge of designing and implimenting a corporate network as well as training the decidedly "old school" corporate structure then in place on how to use it.
It's a common problem. You can't teach people what they don't want to learn. And from my experience even today most of the upper management in most corporations still don't want computers on their desk. They love having computers on their employes desks but they will kick and scream like the spoiled little kids they are if you try to teach them how to send e-mail.
If the level of computing competency in the world today was even half what it should be melissa would not have been possible. We need to stop teaching people how to use software and start teaching them how to use computers. Untill we got over this hurdle bringing computers into our lives on the level we now have them is foolhardy.
As for my other argument. I still say you get what you ask for. I agree that you shoulden't have to lock your doors. You shoulden't have to think about what streets you walk home down at night. But the world is not perfect. There are bad people (even though some of us have a hard time imagianing that). And what's more there will always be bad people. Afterall without evil how will you know what's good?
All I'm saying is that we need to rethink how we teach computers. No everyone want's to learn about registers, hex, binary, and all the nity gritty that happens every microsecond after you hit that power switch. But it's just as essential as learning how to walk before learning how to run. Personally I can name several subjects I would have rather not learned, but we require them for one reason or another.
In a world where computers are literally everywhere it's not asking too much to start teaching the basics of computing very early. And untill the people with lots of power agree we will continue to churn out uncomprehending lusers and things like melissa will become more and more common.
(I've taken more space than I feel I should be entitled to so I'll stop now. Besides this is an argument that can go on and on and on....)
Don't all these new rules remind anyone of that game about making rules? I just spent half an hour searching the net and can't seem to find it. All I remember was it was a hacker game that revolved around making rules and making rules about how to make rules.
Sorry I've gotta disagree with you big time here. Your malice and anger are displaced. Why? Personally I have more respect for the virus author than for anyone who fell for it. Too many people are becoming too relient on technology they don't understand.
At least the author understood the system well enough to exploit it.
The lusers who actually let the virus run free on their system by allowing software to run macros automatically on incoming e-mail messages are the ones I blame. Them and a culture that tries to get us to accept more technology into our life without understanding it.
Don't get me wrong. Viruses Piss me off big time. But having been around computers since the mid eighties and for a good part of that time being too involved in "fringe activities" (Shall we say?) I have never lost any data to a virus.
Sure I've lost some time getting rid of it but at least I leared my lesson and looked at my computing habits.
Protecting yourself from computer viruses isn't all that much harder than locking your car doors when you get out. Of course I know a college grad who got upset when someone stole his car stereo even though he parked it with the windows open and doors unlocked.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still waiting for them to bring over their window manager and desktop from IRIX. That was my favorite part of workingon an SGI. If I could get the full IRIX feel out of my linux box I'd be in heaven! Of course then there'd be less reason to get IRIX instead of Linux so I doubt they'll do it.
Odd, just this morning I was helping my business partner write a piece for the local paper about how the future of the internet will affect our area. Other than my standard line about how predicting the future of technology is a foolish waste of time I did contribute the slightly usefull idea of neurocomputing.
Which got me thinking about how things such as telepathy and other ESP phenomenon could be replicated easily if we used our bodies as the UI to computers in the future. Imagine just having video signals fed straight into your visual cortex. Or being able to take a photo just by looking at something. The possibilities are endless and unthinkable.
This also reminds me of my comment I made about that pen mouse last week. And now that I'm home I have my resources handy to quote. Specifically in the June 1995 (#59) issue of Circuit Cellar Ink they ran an article called "An Eye-controlled Mouse" which was presented as a study in signal condtioning. Basically they used EEG signals (as the guy in this article passes off as unpractical) picked up through 3 sensors on your head. This was fed to a simple pic based micro controller whihch converted the brain signals so that they could be fed to a serial port and looked like signals from a standard mouse. Simple circuit, simple code. But you do need the eeg sensors to pull it off. That was what kept me from trying.
Actually there was an article in "Circuit Cellar Ink" (whose website escapes me at the moment) about two or three years ago with plans for just such a device. The only problem was you needed three EKG sensors to use it. IIRC it tracked where you looked and used blinks as clicks. It was developed for disabled use but I still want to build one for fun someday. If anyone is interested e-mail me and I'll lookup the article next week when I'm back home again (I'm on the road this week...but I still need my daily /. fix!)
I noticed the missing logo earlier today while doing a little searching on infoseek. I still refuse to use infoseek.go.com and still type infoseek.com just out of pure stuborness.
The only thing that bothers me is I though go.com was going after goto.com for the similarity. I didn't realize it was the other way around. Or did the courts just turn around and bite the guys who brought the suit up in the first place?
I think the big problem is people not shopping around for their doctors well. Before I had LASIK my eyes were pretty bad, I could make out the E on the chart and could guess some of the letters on the line below it but that was about all. I don't have my last prescreption handy and don't remember exactly how bad I was.
I've been waiting quite a while for many of the clinical trials to finish. My normal eye care doctor also had been watching the trials and was trained in RK but refused to use it. Recently he told me I should look into LASIK and I did. With a vengence.
I spent over 4 hours talking with the doctor who I eventually had do my surgury. I spoke with nearly a dozen of the over 1,000 patients he had already treated. Oh, and I went to the most respectable clinic in my area to find him. (Cleveland Clinic for reference) I asked him flat out about many of the possible outcomes and complications and he did NOT try to sugar coat anything. He was very upfront and honest. After that I researched the research and statistics that were available regarding LASIK. Specifically I got the statistics on the procedures he had performed and the statistics of the people who had trained him. I was willing to play the odds based on what I saw.
Oh I should also mention that he warned me beforehand that my pupils were borderline on being large enough to cause problems with Night Vision.
If given the chance again I would definatly have the surgure again. I can now read the 20/20 line as if it was a book in front of my face, and the 20/15 isn't much harder. I can do better but that depends on the lighting. In bright light I feel like an Eagle. In dim light I'm still 20/20 but can notice some haze around light sources. (Still not as bad as the bluring when my glasses used to get dirty [10 minutes after washing them]).
However, I do not like driving at night any more than necessary expect in brightly lit areas. As long as I concentrate I don't notice the halos around headlights. But if I let my concentration down and my eyes start to relax it can become very distracting. (I am easily distracted however!).
Overall If you are thinking about surgury give LASIK a good strong look but be sure to do your OWN research and not take anyone else's at face value. I've seen plenty of explanations of the same statistics that are damn convincing in both directions. Get the stats yourself and make your own decesions.
My guess is it's a joke by the google people.
After all even
"More fish than satan"
will bring up MS as the first link!
I haven't read the articles too closely yet but I wonder how reliably they tracked them.
After all pretty much any hacker raised durring the cold war period would love to make it look like they were coming from Russia. Soon as the trackers got that far you'd hope their just going to jump on it! Of course now we've got better targets to hide behind but someone from the proper time period with the right mindset....
Heck I see this as great news, MS finally considers Linux to be a big enough competitor to start the FUD flowing freely and openly. With all the other things they've said and had said against them lately this can only help the cause.
IMHO we should all down a few v-beers and call this a victory.
This is the same reason I am disgusted by what Bill Gates considers his contribuitions to "Charity". Giving MS software to elementary and secondary schools? It's worse than the whole IE integration thing.
Sure he gives out some software that costs him nothing but could have been sold for several thousand dollars. And in return he gets a generation of kids who've been force fed his applications since the first time they touch a keyboard. If they don't get exposed to anything else then why would they even want to think about anything but MS solutions.
Of course the one saving grace is that kids more and more are questioning what they learn in school and questioning the schools themselves. My only hope is that kids revolt and turn agains MS because it's "what they get in school".
Ok, this could be the fact that it's saturday and I've had a couple of beers. Or it could just be that I feel like getting something off my chest and this is at least a slightly related place to vent it.
(I really should post this anon but..)
OSS can't make it mainstream because it just dosen't make enough work for people. With 98 and NT on the desktop and for servers you're practically guaranteed that your tech and MIS guys are going to have something to do every hour that they're willing to contribuite. With OSS they just sit there and live the dream of a future with less work. Unless they're good enough and motivated enough to hack on the software and improve it.
One of the companies I've worked for has been running an SGI (not quite OSS but they're coming around) since 94 and a linux box since 93. The only time either of them have been rebooted (other than kernel upgrades..and that linux was still running a pre 2.0 kernel last time I checked) was when they had to be physically moved from one room to another! On the other hand at the proding of the marketing manager MIS tested the viability of moving the website from that SGI to an NT server.
The NT server required constant babysitting. Several reboots a day because it would hang, and nothing but broken promises when it comes to the ease of developing web based applications. The day I tought the admin of that machine how to program in perl for the SGI he practically unplugged the NT machine and started filling out the return forms! He coulden't belive how much simpler it was. Of course he came from a tradional CS background rooted heavily in Unix.
Then again even the desktop designer who came from a Mac background and was a diehard GUI fan admitted it was easier than working with ASP on the NT machine.
Ok, I'm rambling and not making sense anymore (or so I'm guessing) so I'll cut it short. Bye bye karma for this one.
Ok, so no one took me to court, sued me, or tried to bring civil charges against me. But my original college hosted web site was unfairly banned because of a link.
I was one of (if not the) first person to have a web page at Ohio University. My page was up before the guy who setup our first web server had his up. So to try and show what was possible I created a site (on OU's first linux box) to host local area artists. I had a few of my photos, a few of my bosses paintings, and a link to a CS student's "body art" page.
On his body art page he had photos of his..."Prince Albert" go look it up if you don't know, all I'll say is ouch! So my homepage linked to my art site which in turn linked to the "Body art" page which linked to its creators photos of his own personal body art.
Well finally my college within the university (Visual Communications) gets with the program and creates their own website including a list of links to student created pages. (A bunch done for a "web design" class that taught to create large imagemaps in photoshop and called them webpages, and a few independly created pages). I asked for months to get listed on the indepent student pages.
Finally after nearly a year I got an answer why. Apparantly the head of VisCom and visited my site and declared that it contained pornography. Amazed I scheduled an appointment with him to find out where he found porn on my site!
He then explained how he found the photos of the "Prince Albert". Needless to say I was amazed. After nearly two hours of arguing he finally agreed to link to my site only because the linux box that hosted the art site was being taken down because the CS department coulden't find anyone in their college to take over as sysadmin once the original sysadmin graduated and went to work for a local ISP.
Ain't college great?
While I will agree that thin-clients are probably a cheaper and easier way to go for corporate computing. I do have to strongly disagree with your opinion that the average person should not have to know what's going on inside their computer.
Just look at our highways for a perfect example of what happens when industry dumbs down technology to the point that people don't have to understand it to use it. Too many people can't so simple maintance on their own cars, and too many of those cars are now dangers to other people on the road.
I'm not saying people are going to die because they can't work on their computer. But I would hate to see the computer industry fall into this trap of complancy. The past few years we've seen great steps forward in educating the GP about computers, how the work, and how to get the most out of them. It would be a MAJOR loss to take a step back and keep them from even seeing that they are using a computer.
----
Jason
Gee, maybe I am a bit odd but I've always wanted a cardboard box computer. I remember trying to save up to get the parts for one over 8 years ago. I planned on building the biggest baddest computer I'd ever used and the putting it in a cardboard box so no one would suspect how big and bad it was.
Baybe I just love surprises, but I always though it would be realy cool. Oh, and blinken lights can never be downplayed! I still feel left out because I don't have an LCD panel on my system and I no longer have a free parallel port for my 8LED status lights (That did the night rider thing based on load)
That both of the articles cited in this posting are almost exactly the same? Right to the point of being almost word for word copies of each other.
I don't know if MSNBC copied from ZDNet or the other way around, but either way it makes one wonder where these "journalists" are going for their info. Almost makes me wonder if someone is spoonfeeding it to them.
I'm all for free linking but the way this movie-list is linking is IMHO not only in very bad taste it does infringe on IP rights. If he were just linking to the page which Universal had the trailers posted on I would stand up and fight for him just as loudly and proudly as anyone.
.MOV files themselves. Which is just as bad as if someone linked to one of my copyrighted photographs to display as their own on their website.
But, he dosen't link to any pages on Universal's site. Only to the
All URL's are not created equally. Admittedly a movie trailer is a bit different than a photograph. It's not like he's modifying the trailers to remove Universals name and copyright info. I say if the work of art is clearly identified within itself as being copyrighted and is available on the net through a simple URL then you don't have a leg to stand on legally. It may be in horribly bad taste and exceptionally poor nettiquit but should not be illegal. If that work of art though does not or can not carry it's copyright information within itself then linking to it without giving credit is not only bad taste and all that but should also be illegal.
And as many have said before. If Universal wanted to keep links out they could. The law should not be used to protect the lazy from their own ignorance.
Could this be it? Could this be the moment all geeks across the world have been waiting for? Something that only we can save the helpless clueless public from? I dunno.
Personally I think they're going about it all wrong. Anyone who needs a refresher about just how far up their own butt the gov't got their head when it comes to the internet should go back and read "The Cuckoos Egg" again. They don't need to watch civilian traffic. That's the public's problem. What they need to watch and guard much more carfully is the very thing this proposal leaves out...government and military networks. That's what they need to be worried about. So what if rogue terrorist hackers from bolivia hack into Bank One and steal every last penny. That's the banks problem and they should be on the watch for it just like any other sysadmin. What the feds need to do is keep their nose in their own business since they obviously don't spend enough time watching their own backs.
I was about to suggest that. Oh well I'll include a link to how to fix it to make this reply worth while:
http://members.aol.com/htbasics/
It's listed under Mod/Proj./Upgrades it's the first project. Very simple.
Disclaimer: Just another from my bookmark file
Not to mention going up to a video store and renting a movie is a LOT quicker and easier for me than going up to a CC.
Video Store: Literally across the street, Cute counter help, Late fee's are my own problem - I know up front when I rent when it's due back. I have no problem taking responsibility for getting it there.
CC: almost an hour to the closest one, quite possibly the most annoying staff out of any store I've ever been to, very porly informed staff, pushy unhelpfull staff.
And that's just the renting vs. buying at CC!
Add in the way that most DIVIX don't have widescreen, (Forget about HD 1:19 TV's are here now) some can't go silver, and the idea of "pay per view" makes me look for a discounted price, not a higher one! This is no bonus, it's (* I'll censor myself here*).
First off A quick hi to Abigail who I still quote on my homepage even though I haven't known your addresss for almost 4 years.
Anways, the arguments against my argument are almost the same point I was trying to make. (I should just give up on written language and try writing comments in source code, less ambiguity)
My problem is with giving people technology that they can't or won't handle. Having been in charge of designing and implimenting a corporate network as well as training the decidedly "old school" corporate structure then in place on how to use it.
It's a common problem. You can't teach people what they don't want to learn. And from my experience even today most of the upper management in most corporations still don't want computers on their desk. They love having computers on their employes desks but they will kick and scream like the spoiled little kids they are if you try to teach them how to send e-mail.
If the level of computing competency in the world today was even half what it should be melissa would not have been possible. We need to stop teaching people how to use software and start teaching them how to use computers. Untill we got over this hurdle bringing computers into our lives on the level we now have them is foolhardy.
As for my other argument. I still say you get what you ask for. I agree that you shoulden't have to lock your doors. You shoulden't have to think about what streets you walk home down at night. But the world is not perfect. There are bad people (even though some of us have a hard time imagianing that). And what's more there will always be bad people. Afterall without evil how will you know what's good?
All I'm saying is that we need to rethink how we teach computers. No everyone want's to learn about registers, hex, binary, and all the nity gritty that happens every microsecond after you hit that power switch. But it's just as essential as learning how to walk before learning how to run. Personally I can name several subjects I would have rather not learned, but we require them for one reason or another.
In a world where computers are literally everywhere it's not asking too much to start teaching the basics of computing very early. And untill the people with lots of power agree we will continue to churn out uncomprehending lusers and things like melissa will become more and more common.
(I've taken more space than I feel I should be entitled to so I'll stop now. Besides this is an argument that can go on and on and on....)
That's it! Thanks. A quick search and I found the creators homepage:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm
Just in case anyone else was interested and even lazier than me!
Don't all these new rules remind anyone of that game about making rules? I just spent half an hour searching the net and can't seem to find it. All I remember was it was a hacker game that revolved around making rules and making rules about how to make rules.
Sorry I've gotta disagree with you big time here. Your malice and anger are displaced. Why? Personally I have more respect for the virus author than for anyone who fell for it. Too many people are becoming too relient on technology they don't understand.
At least the author understood the system well enough to exploit it.
The lusers who actually let the virus run free on their system by allowing software to run macros automatically on incoming e-mail messages are the ones I blame. Them and a culture that tries to get us to accept more technology into our life without understanding it.
Don't get me wrong. Viruses Piss me off big time. But having been around computers since the mid eighties and for a good part of that time being too involved in "fringe activities" (Shall we say?) I have never lost any data to a virus.
Sure I've lost some time getting rid of it but at least I leared my lesson and looked at my computing habits.
Protecting yourself from computer viruses isn't all that much harder than locking your car doors when you get out. Of course I know a college grad who got upset when someone stole his car stereo even though he parked it with the windows open and doors unlocked.