Friday October 27 2006 @ 10:19 PM
Tuesday October 17 2006 @ 1:10 AM
Pretty bold to "owe" us "Complete Satisfaction" for free
This is from the generic Target pasta package
Tuesday September 12 2006 @ 10:51 PM
The new iTunes 7 will use ~60% CPU time while holding down one of the following while iTunes has focus:
- maybe more?
Its pretty sweet in Ventrilo press-to-talk mode.
Friday September 1 2006 @ 9:30 PM
I'm glad they know what's important.
Wednesday July 12 2006 @ 9:25 PM
These two articles are pretty ownage:
Wednesday July 5 2006 @ 9:54 PM
I have used Virtual PC for quite some time. I'm really into how easy it is to use. It used to be made by Connectix. Microsoft was really cool and bought them so that they could compete with VMWare.
Microsoft re-branded Virtual PC, replacing all the Connectix graphics with their own. The application maintained its relatively simple and easy to use interface. It was nice.
Microsoft used the virtual machine technology to create Microsoft Virtual Server. I had never used it or really even knew what it was. But I knew it was made to compete with VMWare's similar product.
So a few months ago I read that Microsoft was giving away a free version of their Virtual Server application. I thought… RIGHT ON! How cool is this? Virtual PC improved and free!
I downloaded the application and ran the installer.
The first thing it says is “This program requires Internet Information Services”. I thought ‘it must be lying'. I just knew that it was bullshit. I was so sure that it must be part of some auxiliary feature that no one would use, or at least that I wouldn't use. So I click the ignore button or whatever and it keeps going.
It finally finishes and I go into the start menu looking for something to run like I don't know… “Microsoft Virtual Server 2006” or whatever. Nothing. NOTHING! I thought “maybe I clicked past some “you need to restart” box and that Microsoft cant write installers worth shit so it would actually finish installing when I rebooted. So I rebooted.
Windows came back up, started like normal. I went into the start menu again, and still nothing. I dicked around for like 20 minutes looking for an EXE or something. I couldn't find a single exe besides the uninstaller. It was insane!
I opened up the documentation looking for the slightest clue as to how the installer must have failed. After looking through, I figured it out!
Apparently the entire application is driven over a web interface! INGENIOUS! The reason it wouldn't work is because A: I was looking for … get this… an application. And B: I don't have IIS installed!
Stupid me. I ignored the warning that it required IIS, and it still let me install even though I didn't have it. Stupid me. I assumed that installing an application would install an application. Stupid me. I thought that Microsoft couldn't completely ruin a good application.
Let's think about the Microsoft development process now. Why make an application into a webpage? Is a web page really the best platform for a Virtual Machine manager? Honestly. HTTP… I can't think of any way you could use hypertext to help improve a virtual machine interface. So obviously IIS is REQUIRED for one to use Virtual Server. There is absolutely no way to use Virtual Server without IIS. Why would it let you continue installing it if there is absolutely no way for it to work? HTTP? WHAT THE @#*!
Any way, I uninstalled it as soon as I could. What a complete waist of time. Microsoft should have saved me the trouble and put across the Virtual Server webpage “This isn't actually an entire application. This is a dll that uses IIS to run.” Thanks Microsoft!
Thursday June 1 2006 @ 6:52 PM
Using a meta tag named “ProgId” with a content value of the registry key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT that contains information about the icon. In the registry, you have a key under that ProgId named “HTML Handler”. Under that, you have a key named “Icon”. In that key, you create a new string value using the extension of the file you want to change the icon for as the name, and the data being the file extension that has the icon you want to change to.
You can see in this example I created a new file with an extension HTML. I then specified a ProgId of “testType”. I create a new ProgId in the registry. I pointed to an icon of a text file.
Pretty complicated and completely undocumented: Totally Microsoft.
Thursday May 18 2006 @ 1:48 AM
I was never into Star Wars as a kid. The first Star Wars movie I saw was Episode 1. I really liked it. Then I saw Episode 2. I really liked that one too. Then I saw Episode 3, again, I really liked it.
Ever since the release of Episode 1, I have heard over and over the cry of all the fans of the original Star Wars movies. So many people went on and on about how bad the three new movies were. How bad the acting was. How bad the ‘virtual’ sets were. How unbelievable it was. How the characters ‘came out of no where’ or ‘had no base in the story’.
I thought, hey, maybe I should see these older three movies, seeing as how I loved the new three, so these must be spectacular. I watched Episode 4. It was crap. I laughed at how bad it was as I watched it. I decided not to watch the Episode 5 and 6 because if they were anything like Episode 4, it wouldn’t be worth my time.
I gave in and watched Episode 5 and 6. They were much better than 4, but still no where near as good as 1, 2, and 3. All the reasons I had heard over and over about why the new movies were so bad held true for the originals!
I hate criticizing acting. For one, it’s subjective. And second, most people don’t know good acting any way. And third, people usually use “bad acting” as a reason to hate a movie because they are left with no other reason to say they didn’t like that movie. Obviously this is debatable, but the acting in the original three movies was crap compared to the new three. I’m not saying Harrison Ford or any of the other star cast was bad, but so much of the supporting actors were garbage. And normally I don’t care if the acting is bad, that’s a very small part of a movie. But when people say “Episode 1 sucks because of how horrible the acting is”, they should go back and watch Episode 4 without bias. The acting was miserable.
Virtual sets are amazing. You can create anything in a virtual set. If the lighting matches the blue-screen live action, there is absolutely nothing you can complain about. Some movies have really bad virtual sets. But in episode 1, 2, and 3, I never thought “wow these look like crap”. All the ‘virtual sets’ in the new movies were fantastically done. They were all photo realistic and the lighting always matched. If we go back to the original three movies and look at their ‘virtual sets’ in the form of miniatures and puppets, we can make a pretty good comparison. It’s obvious when they are using miniature sets, props, and puppets in the original movies. In fact, it’s often very poorly done. Yes they were on a limited budget. But don’t say the virtual sets in the new movies were bad if the virtual sets in the old movies were so amazingly bad.
If something is unbelievable in a science fiction movie, and you think that’s bad, get a life.
As for characters ‘coming out of no where’, meaning they were only in one or two of the six episodes, what’s the problem? You could remove characters like Grevis, or Duku and not really affect much. You could continue removing characters. Maybe Laya. She didn’t have much to do with anything. Maybe Yoda. In the scheme of things, he wasn’t really necessary. If you removed all the ‘characters from nowhere’ you would be left with a single short movie. You would also make things boring. Short term plots are fun. Long term plots are fun. Long term plots without short term plots are really boring. Star Trek Voyager’s long term plot, getting home, didn’t need any short term plots. However, they had about 170 of them. They were mostly all great. It made the long term plot a lot more fun. That’s the point of the characters from nowhere. It was nice having the long term plot finished, although I’m sure that episodes 4, 5, and 6 could have been much more entertaining if they had better short term plots.
Until one of the people from ‘the new movies sucked’ crowd gives me a good reason why they really did suck, and one that out ways how crappy the original movies were in the first place, I am going to stick with my belief that those people are crazy. I would bet that if the people who ‘like’ the originals more than the new ones never saw the originals, then saw them after the new ones came out, just like I did, they would think the originals were crap… Just like me.
Tuesday April 18 2006 @ 5:55 PM
Wednesday March 29 2006 @ 7:13 PM
For about one and a half years I have been using an NEC-Mitsubishi FP2141SB CRT monitor.
Up until recently, every single time the monitor was set to 60 Hz (During BIOS POST, Windows boot, OpenGL Games, DirectX games before it was patched, or manually) the monitor would display this huge warning about how 60hz is really low and that it should be higher, refer to the manual for how to set it. Now if this were in Windows only, I would have no problem. 60 Hz sucks. But during POST, I can’t see any of the information. During Windows boot, it nearly completely covers the Windows logo. And during games, I can’t see shit! It did have a method to exit it, but it was so annoying to exit it all the time.
I called tech support. They said that that window was by design and that it was impossible to disable.
Well I am happy to report that I DISSABLED IT! This may not work for you, but I reset the monitor to factory defaults, and now that box never comes up! Hope this helps at least one other user of this display.
Wednesday March 8 2006 @ 10:23 PM
This is the registration page for the US Selective Service. Sexists.
This is a Case Logic USB flash memory holder. They use a plastic that turns opaque white when its folded or bent. I think they probably could have found a better plastic to use.
If it's corrupt, then what's the point in not emptying it? And how did it get corrupt in the first place?
Here we see Microsoft Windows Performance Monitor. I was using this to help locate spyware on a friend's computer. For whatever reason, it just stops recording data for a few seconds.
Friday February 17 2006 @ 3:45 PM
Yes, I can
Can you guess what product or service this is for?
It’s not anything related to self help. It’s not drug that makes you feel better or a drug at all. It’s not something that will improve your ability to do anything that you couldn’t do before you bought it like a car or tool. If you guessed a small urine leakage pad, YOU’RE RIGHT! The slogan for Poise pads is “Yes, I can”. Totally appropriate.
Monday January 30 2006 @ 5:34 PM
Digg is a pretty cool website. Digg has lots of frequently updated news, lots of great links, and is pretty great overall. However, the community around digg is pretty… mindless.
For whatever reason, there seems to be some reoccurring topics that keep getting diggs. These are AJAX and Web 2.0. Now AJAX has been around for many years, but up until recently it didn't have a name. Some guy was nice enough to give it a name, a slightly cool name at that. Now it's THE thing to talk about. Anything that uses AJAX, no matter how useless, poorly designed, redundant, old, or crappy in general, is immediately dugg up to the front page. Searching for ‘AJAX”, there are 60 pages, 15 items per page. Most likely 60 pages is the maximum result count. That's an average of 2.0 diggs about AJAX per day. Insane. WHO CARES ABOUT AJAX YOU TOOLS!
Yet another reoccurring theme on digg is “Web 2.0”. Some have even mentioned “Web 3.0”. I have yet to see a single definition of either term. I think its safe to say that it involves AJAX, but it has to be more than just that. I can't think of anything though. I mean I can think of things that people may think is important, like the backend scripting language, data transfer protocols and formats, many things. But nothing that has been around for less than 5 years, which would most definitely have been part of “Web 1.0”. Anyone that uses a word or term without having a definition for it has no reason to use it. If I made up a term like “Internet 6.3b1” and defined it, it would be much more right in using it because it actually has meaning to at least one person. Joel Spolsky says: " The term Web 2.0 particularly bugs me. It's not a real concept. It has no meaning. It's a big, vague, nebulous cloud of pure architectural nothingness.” Correct!
The last thing about digg that bugs me a lot is the comments people leave. Here are some comments from some of the latest digg postings:
“YAY!”, “This isn't new.” (could have rated it old news), “Awsome!!”, “Awesome”, “Digg++”, “Cool !” (notice the space), “Fun stuff. +digg.”, “Great news.”, “nice..”, “i love wikipedia.” (don't we all), “i digg it yo !”, “Fantastic!”, “lol”, “cool”
Monday January 9 2006 @ 4:43 PM
Some nearly verbatim quotes from my Civilizations book:
The people from long ago probably ate things.
We can conclude this obvious worthless information and make all these worthlessly useless detailed comments on that information that you probably would have guessed by yourself without us telling you about it because you are obviously smart enough to read or you wouldn't be reading this book.
Friday December 23 2005 @ 11:18 PM
Subject: Fundamentals of Physics, 7th Edition
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
I am a student in a physics class that is using the text book you and your co-authors wrote. I have a few comments to make about it.
I enjoy the consistency of the book. The style of the images and diagrams (however absurd) are remarkably consistent.
I like the idea that I only ever have to buy one physics book (theoretically) for 3 classes.
The book is well organized.
The URL in the preface of the book is incorrect. It reads "http:www..." this is an invalid URL. You need to have slashes after the colon. It should be "http://www...". I would suggest you look for more competent editors.
The lightning on the cover of the book is obviously added using a computer graphics program and looks amazingly fake. Also, the vast majority of lightning strikes from the ground to the sky. The lightning on the cover of the book looks like it is striking from the sky to the ground. This is unacceptable for a book about physics. Its like me writing a computer programming text book and putting source code on the front that wont compile due to syntax errors.
Claiming that combining two chapters and changing the problems around warrants a new edition is bullshit. These changes CLEARLY do not warrant a new edition. You should be honest with your readers and tell them that a new edition was published so that you would be able to make more money.
Eagerly awaiting your response,
Monday December 19 2005 @ 1:47 AM
Charlie: i think YOUR insane Person: that's fine Person: I make more money than you :) Person: and I'm going to bed Charlie: good night Person: have fun in nyPerson signed off (went away).
Tuesday December 13 2005 @ 2:22 PM
Of course checking to see if you actually have a modem installed in your computer wouldn't make sense. Most people have 56k I'm sure. WHO HAS 28.8? It's cheaper to get DSL! All major providers have it for less than $20 a month.
Tuesday December 13 2005 @ 2:13 PM
Friday December 9 2005 @ 5:35 PM
Monday November 14 2005 @ 2:07 AM
Here is a quote from a foam matress store's website:
During the course of the day, the human body accumulates and stores static electricity. This stored static charge has a negative effect on sleep. Lowering the body's static charge helps the body rid itself of tension and improves the quality of sleep. This is the primary function of the revolutionary Intense cover. Dr. Chris Idzikowsi, one of the world's leading specialists in sleep research, demonstrated that people sleeping on static-reducing Intense were better rested and required less sleep.
Apparently when you get shocked touching a doorknob, you aren't actually disscharging that static charge? Must be so!