Linux Geeks Take Over

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 23

Linux Geeks Take Over

Author:

skilm

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jan 31, 2002

Comments:

I am one of the friendly Linux Geeks who have seemed to take over this site in the last few weeks/months. We are, despite claims otherwise, stable, helpful, and kempt individuals. I would like to know how many of us there are, and what kind of networks/computers we are running.

More diaries by skilm

	Difficult-to-Learn Computer Topics???
	Stupidity
	Every Virus Warning You'll Ever Need

Personally, I am a HUGE networking geek. I'll try to start at the beginning.

I have a small home network, growing by the day. My Internet connection is broadband, channeled through a Linksys 4-port Cable/DSL Router. That connection is split to my main Linux Server, my Win98/Redhat 7.2 Desktop machine, and a seperate 8-port switch which can take wired connections from friends, and also connects my Linksys WAP11 wireless access point.

At this point, my network is bridged over the wireless connection to yet another Linksys WAP11, which connects into a 5-port switch in my room. This switch connects my other two servers - my SPARCstation 20 and my Testing Server. Two notebooks in the house can also connect to the WAP over an 802.11b wireless connection.

Whew! Now that that's over, let me know what you guys are running in your homes. I think it would be cool to try to impress each other :-)

	Taking over? (none / 0) (#1)
	by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:01:08 AM PST

	In my opinion, gks couldn't find their own genitals with both hands -- as the folk saying goes. In any case, any person who has to ramble about technology to keep conversation is a socially flawed individual. Notice how I don't need to say anything "LinkSys" or "SparcStation" even though I know more about computers than any gk on this site. P.S. I'm posting this just so that our autistic little brothers realise that their computertalk gibberish only serves to alienate themselves further from society. -- Peace and much love...

	See Above (none / 0) (#11)
	by skilm on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 08:00:41 AM PST

	I have plenty of social life, thank you. I don't see what that has to do with anything. I enjoy talking about computers with some of my friends. I don't make fun of you guys when you all talk about "being a good christian" and what not on this site. I've never met a good christian. All of them, like all of you, talk about "being caring moral people who love everyone" and then immediately begin making fun of, and screaming at anyone with a different opinion than you. I hope you all go to hell. ------------------------------------------------- Bread + Egg Nog = Bread Nog

	raw hate (none / 0) (#13)
	by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:57:17 AM PST

	I hope you all go to hell. Funny, I'm a Christian and I've never said that to anybody. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Simple (none / 0) (#15)
	by westgeof on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:29:09 AM PST

	That's because no true Christian would say that. Christianity is (supposed to be) about love and forgiveness. I'm not one myself (I keep getting hung up on that 'belief' part) but I do respect the ideals of Christianity. The sad part is that in my life, living in about 30 or so places in 12 different states, I've met just a handful of people who seem to adhere to the true core of Christianity. (3, maybe 4, and I could be wrong about them, but everyone else was a definate hypocrite.) As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

	"Love and forgiveness". (none / 0) (#17)
	by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 11:22:34 AM PST

	Actually, Christianity is about acceping God into your life. Very simple. -- Peace and much love...

	But you fail to define (none / 0) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 03:42:40 AM PST

	what it means to "accept god" into your life. And you never will. You're like the swindlers who ask "what does it mean to you" when you question their tenacity for displaying 8000 sytrofoam cups and calling it "art". Face it - Christianity is just another religion, written as usual by charlatans seeking to dominate and exploit lesser men for their own ends. Picking out people by their gullibility is clever, but it is also reprehensible. If someone came to you and said you had an "IP-Token"... er, an "immortal soul", and that it could be "saved" by believing in the existance of a bearded man who tallies the fall of swallows, then you would take one look at him before calling the police. You certainly wouldn't build him a "church" and pay him a "tithe" for his inane ramblings. Have we really come to a stage in civilisation where we don't have anything real to worry about, so we fritter away the time debating the existance of pixies at the bottom of the garden?

	You are so stupid. (none / 0) (#26)
	by tkatchev on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 05:11:43 AM PST

	I don't think I want to argue with someone so stupid he doesn't know the difference between "powerful dude in a cloud" and "omnipotent creator of the Universe". Your atheism is just a consequence of your limited grasp of reality and short attention span. Grow up. -- Peace and much love...

	Gods are overrated. (nt) (none / 0) (#27)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 05:35:40 AM PST

	No. (none / 0) (#28)
	by tkatchev on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:09:23 AM PST

	You are overrated. And redundant. -- Peace and much love...

	So you agree with me then (none / 0) (#31)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:01:01 AM PST

	You theists keep giving lauds to your fictional "god", making him creator of the universe one day, giving him infinite wisdom the other, adding omniscience and omnipotence like you're decorating a cake. We humans know there are powerful invisible forces at work in our habitat, because these forces affect us physically. Science is dedicated to studying these forces rationally. It does not pretend to understand them fully. But this is infinitely preferrable to baselessly claiming that the forces are the work of a made-up fictional character you call "god". Please! Do you appreciate the warmth of the Sun, the freshness of the winds and the live-giving rain splashing on the arable land? Do you feel an overwhemling need to be thankful for them? Then please worship them directly. Do not be tricked by a cunning "minister of god" into believing "god" controls the elements. It's in his interest to say they are.

	Sigh. (none / 0) (#33)
	by tkatchev on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:37:45 AM PST

	Since you appear to have the mental capacity of a child, I'll repeat again: The Christian God is an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything. What makes the sun shine and the grass grow is not important. That's not what Christianity is about. Christianity is about the creator of the universe. By "universe", I mean absolutely everything in the world. The first step, that which stands behind everything. The force behind "big bang". Christianity is not a religion that concerns itself with explaining stormclouds and birdflight. I don't know how I can phrase this any simpler. If you still don't understand what I'm getting at, perhaps you need to stop and try thinking about it a little bit harder, without the ideological atheist shutters blinding you. Really, the vast majority of people have no problem understanding this concept. -- Peace and much love...

	Why do you hate nature? (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:22:11 AM PST

	The Christian God is an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything. You theists are like squabbling children. "My invisible friend created everything!" "No, MY invisible friend created everything!". You supposedly have a great reverence for the natural world, yet you want to scribble "belongs to GOD" on everything you find. You couldn't accept that the natural world might have created itself. No, it has to be a fictional moralist that agrees with your lifestyle that created the universe. There couldn't be any other explanation. Frankly, you disgust me. You are an intellectual coward who needs to invent a fictional big brother to protect yourself.

	Re: (none / 0) (#42)
	by tkatchev on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:03:53 AM PST

	God is infinite. Not infinite as in "really huge" -- inifinite as in the mathematical infinity, something beyond our comprehension, something that cannot wholly be contained in the material world. -- Peace and much love...

	God: my invisible, infinite friend (none / 0) (#51)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 02:40:05 AM PST

	God is infinite. Not infinite as in "really huge" -- inifinite as in the mathematical infinity, something beyond our comprehension, something that cannot wholly be contained in the material world. Surprisingly enough, you can represent infinity just by writing it down. That's really all it takes. Mathematicians do this as a matter of course, but they use infinite to clarify problems and derive a solution. Theologians use infinity to mystify issues and leave them unanswered.

	thanks for informing me. (none / 0) (#46)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:00:43 PM PST

	No, it has to be a fictional moralist that agrees with your lifestyle that created the universe. Oddly enough, Christianity demands that its adherents change their lives, and it's explicitly stated in the Bible that no "lifestyle" is sufficient to save you from your sinful nature. I know that I changed many things about my life when I decided to accept Christianity. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	All right! (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:09:38 PM PST

	You know, I believed in God until I read your post. In the past I thought long and hard about how the universe could have came to be and I really found no explanation other than some force well beyond our ability to comprehend, namely God. But now, after reading your enlightening words, I recant! the natural world might have created itself. I don't curse often, but that is utterly fucking brilliant. I wouldn't be suprised if I wake up tomorrow morning and see your picture on the cover of A&A, or maybe a box of Wheaties. I can see it now "The Guy Who Explained It All". This is stupendous, and so much more scientific than a silly belief in God. the natural world might have created itself, I can't stop fucking smiling.

	don't you see? (none / 0) (#48)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:40:58 PM PST

	The "nature created itself" guy is obviously an unreformed Aristotelian: he theorizes spontaneous generation! Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Yes. (none / 0) (#50)
	by tkatchev on Sat Feb 2nd, 2002 at 07:47:39 AM PST

	Obviously, stale meat generates maggots. It's a purely scientific statement, disputed only by charlatans who don't understand the scientific principles of cause and effect! -- Peace and much love...

	Charlatans will always be charlatans (none / 0) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 02:52:17 AM PST

	Thankfully, science can advance and make progress. Let me know when they start making computers out of God's infinite love. In the meantime, I take full responsibility for the spiritual and moral decline of the nation.

	you seem to be confused (none / 0) (#38)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:23:20 AM PST

	You appear to be labouring under the delusion that the Christian idea of God is comparable to the pagan idea of a godlet or demiurge. The Christian idea of God is the idea of the Absolute, the Infinite, that which completely surpasses any understanding we could muster. God does make the sun shine, for what that's worth, in the same way that He makes neutrons decay or blood pump. I didn't realize that that was such a problem for you. A demiurge is a philosophical term from Gnosticism or Manichaeism, describing a being capable of supernatural feats (whether mere genie or creator of the matterly world.) A demiurge would not be deserving of worship, because it would simply be another finite being, even if its finity would be vastly greater than our own. While it might be capable of creating a world, it would not possess the trait of noncontingent existence. Its existence wouldn't be a necessary condition for the existence of existence. I hope this clarifies things for you. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	you know... (none / 0) (#29)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:14:24 AM PST

	When I'm trying to pick up a chick, I usually don't do it with unattributed Douglas Adams quotes. If she's that much of a nerd... meh. If she's not, it's IP theft. Either way, you lose. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	For bonus points (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:43:58 AM PST

	Who said "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous."? It's not obvious to you, because you're not British. I pity you. You lack the cultural heritage to know that there have been stories about fairies at the bottom of the garden since Victorian times. Why not read Kingsley's "The Water Babies" one of these days? Adams made a funny quip about theists by comparing them to children who believe in fairies. It's unoriginal, in that people have been making that comparison for many years before Adams was born. What makes Adams' quote special is the distinctive phrasing and wordplay that he's already famous for.

	for bonus points: (none / 0) (#34)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:54:27 AM PST

	Keep your pity for yourself. I'm quite well read, thanks. It's dicey to define "possessing cultural heritage" as being British, wouldn't you say? What makes Adams's (note modern punctuation) quote "special" is that smug atheists love to cite it because, half-miseducated as they all too often are, his phrasing and wordplay strike them as witty and sophisticated. He's distinctive, all right, in the same way as are Monty Python and Doctor Who, but he's not very witty compared with Molière, very sophisticated compared with Noël Coward, or very masterful compared with Evelyn Waugh - none of whom are well-beloved among the brash, brazen, and orgulous[1] children of Modern Education. Don't insult my intelligence again. I don't appreciate it. [1] If you're going to mock me with Sagan, you'd better be prepared for Tennyson and Malory, because that's what's on my mind right now. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	haigh faluten (none / 0) (#40)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:53:07 AM PST

	It's dicey to define "possessing cultural heritage" as being British, wouldn't you say? Mmm. Very. It's a good job I left out the 'therefore' sign. Will the nitpicking never end? love to cite it Was it cited? No. You insinuated it was cited. I refuted that. Let's move on. Adams is a modern comic writer. A one-hit wonder. I'm not going to defend the literary merits of a radio play scriptwriter. And for your information, I preferred Wilde's sophistry. Don't insult my intelligence again. I don't appreciate it. Well perhaps you should put your considerable intellect to better use than nitpicking. you'd better be prepared for Tennyson and Malory I didn't like being forced to read them in school, and I certainly don't choose to read them now. I preferred the drug-induced fantasies of Coleridge. Actually, my favourite poet from school must be Larkin. He's such a dirty little nihilist (eg Reasons for Attendance, Ambulances, Mr Bleaney, etc)

	good Lord (none / 0) (#45)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:52:33 PM PST

	You sneer at Tennyson and in the same breath call me uncultured? Compare your fined use of the word "cite" with your criticism of me for nitpicking. Somehow you've totally failed to impress me with your courageous, unopposed seizing of an illusory moral high ground. I don't really understand why you're calling Wilde a sophist, either. Let's get back to your foul slander of Christianity as a charlatan's religion. The founders of the Christian religion weren't exactly wealthy and powerful, you know. They were poor, simple people who were almost to a man tortured to death by those in power. The early martyrs died gory deaths, and those are quite well documented in the pagan sources too. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Let's cut the crap, girlfriend. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
	by elenchos on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 02:22:30 AM PST

	I think it would be cool to try to impress each other :-) Don't you mean ;-) ? Eh, ;-) ? Look, if you're here to meet other men, I can respect that. Lots of others cruise boys in the Adequacy diaries, and generally we're all for it. Even Rightman wants you around, if only to try to get you to quit your "sinful lifestyle." But this cheap subterfuge about having a little "network" and that is "growing by the day;" that is just too precious for words. Look, come out and say it: you have a hot, hard, steaming shaft of steely man meat, and you need, oh you need right NOW, to meet a little guy who knows as much as you do about how what to do with that slab of beef. Look, that WAP11 talk is not going to work. What you need to do is give some good visuals on your abs, your pecs and your tight, round little tushie. That's what these guys want to know about you. You were on the right track with your nice personality and your good grooming habits, and especially that bit about being so "huge", but then you went and changed the subject. Got it? Now, let's start over: What are you wearing? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	uh... (none / 0) (#10)
	by skilm on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:55:40 AM PST

	Ok, I'm not gay. When you're talking about cruising for boys on adequacy, I think the king has to be Yoshi. Maybe OSM behind him (and I do mean behind). Have fun not knowing what the hell I was talking about in this post, asshole. ------------------------------------------------- Bread + Egg Nog = Bread Nog

	*But you are* gay, skillit. You are so very gay** (none / 0) (#20)
	by elenchos on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:24:08 PM PST

	And your overall gayness is your most attractive feature. That, and your being "kempt". The whole tech thing can be kind of hot, but no man wants a man who doesn't have basic good grooming, like being clean, having a good haircut, wearing taseful, stylish and at least a little bit original clothes. And nice shoes. Typical hackers wear the worst shoes and no matter what else they manage to pull together, the shoes give them away. So you're basically on the right track, and you've come to a place populated by some really sexy people, with the exception of a few hackers who hang around. We do get rid of them eventually, but sometimes it takes a while. Just ignore them in the meantime. Listen, though. It is not 1983, okay? This whole "oh I'm a counfused young 'straight' boy who just likes to act hot towards men, but I don't consider myself 'gay'" thing is just passe. And please tell me you are not the tragically depressed gayboy who is terrified to come out to his parents and just needs a shoulder to cry on. Get over it already. Get out of the closet, quit feeling sorry for yourself and quit these games. You're a fag. Look in the mirror and say to yourself "I'm a fag and that's okay!" After you've done that, get out there and get yourself a boyfriend! And welcome to Adequacy.org! I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	gay? (none / 0) (#21)
	by Yoshi on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 03:15:40 PM PST

	You called me gay, after having the gall to post your metaphoric homosexual diatribe? I am [a] HUGE [networking geek.] I have a small home network, growing by the day. [...] and a seperate [sic] 8-port switch which can take wired connections from friends, and also connects my Linksys WAP11 wireless access point. Your emphasis on HUGE does not escape this site's gaydar detector. I don't need to know that it's "growing by the day," or that your "8 port" can take "connections" from your friends. I'm not even going to ask what the hell a WOP-11 is, but if "access point" is anything like "pressure point," I'd be hard pressed to doubt your homosexuality. You go on to say... Whew! Now that that's over, let me know what you guys are running in your homes. You stay the fuck away from my property, and I won't call the cops. I'm sure there are other guys you can hook up with and see what kind of WOPs they have running in their homes, but don't bother scanning here.

	Taking over? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by osm on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 02:39:39 AM PST

	Last I counted, there was exactly two of you. Though, I will admit you spew more shit than everyone else on the site combined. If you continue to monopolize our bandwidth, I'm afraid you will be blocked from accessing the system. Consider this fair warning, you socialist communal property fucker.

	Ah, to have open standards (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 03:45:35 AM PST

	Has anyone else noticed that linux gks have a really flexible set of standards when it comes to anything social or political. The "Free Dmitry" protests were, by all reasonable accounts, pathetic two hour fizzlers at best, yet they were hailed as stirring, successful demonstrations of public opinion by the gks. Any gathering of four or more guys to chat about computers over beer and doritos is deemed a g**k party. What we have here is obviously a case of open source insurgency. To us, it seems...well, we didn't actually notice, so it doesn't actually "seem". To them, however, the red flag of open source communism flies proudly over the carcass of this website. Another victory for open source!

	wow! cool kit! (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:21:17 AM PST

	I've got a network too. Well, I would have if I had another Game Boy Advance, or any friends. But I do have Linux on my PS2 - it's great! Of course I don't actually use it for anything, apart from staying up late writing device drivers whilst masturbating like a bonobo. Perhaps we should get together?

	Toys!!! (none / 0) (#7)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:32:59 AM PST

	5-port 10/100Mb switching hub. Linux-based firewall and backup dialup server. Linux-based server, running Apache, MySQL, qmail, and couple more services. Used for serious work and for playing MP3s. W98 machine for casual browsing. "Scratch-monkey" W98 machine for destructive software testing (viruses, etc.). Old 286-based laptop set up as VT52 terminal, connected to the Linux machine, used to read newspapers in bed and to solve simple problems when I get a call, to avoid the need to fully awake and walk to the fullscale machine. 64kbps 3.5GHz spread-spectrum microwave connection to the Net, paid for by my employer. (Luxury item, in the country where broadband is next to nonexistant and common home standard is overly expensive dialup.) Fax gateway (under work). GSM gateway (under work). Satellite download system offering 2Mb per second (under work, installation of the dish not done yet). Automatic ntpd-based synchronization of time on all the machines. Monitor/keyboard switching system (a bunch of chips and relays on a breadboard, designed by myself), allowing easy use of one keyboard and two monitors for all the computers here. Just today I bought two 486s for $8 each, in order to use them as terminal machines. Speech synthesis reading the sender and the subject of incoming emails (a crude procmail hack, but hey - it works!). Dad's computer next-room. Corporate server on T1 line, running some of my scripts that depend on high-speed network (mostly download-several-pages, extract-relevant-data, create-result-webpage). Full rights to use it as a toy as long as business performance is not affected. There is a proactive monitoring system under development, and an experimental VPN. Maybe I could consider the company machines (well-over 30, not counting the ones in foreign offices) part of my network as well... I sure want them to be directly visible for me, by means of IP tunneling. Couple more toys. Many more in design stage.

	Excellent stuff (none / 0) (#9)
	by skilm on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:51:40 AM PST

	Sounds like an awesome collection. Unfortunately I haven't been at this quite as long as you have or some of my other friends, so I haven't built up those yet. NTP is on my list though... ROCK ON! ------------------------------------------------- Bread + Egg Nog = Bread Nog

	my toys (none / 0) (#19)
	by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:46:54 PM PST

	1999 David Palm violin (14" string length, 13" fingerboard, spruce over maple ribs and two-piece medium-flame back, mounted with boxwood and rosewood, strung with Hill E, Thomastik Red A, and Pirastro "Eva Pirazzi" D and G.) Reid Hudson bow, pernambuco mounted with silver on ebony, 1992, 60 g. F. Voirin bow, pernambuco mounted with silver on ebony, repaired, 1841, 54 g. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I'm impressed. (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:08:57 AM PST

	But sadly I don't play the violin. Do you have any pianos that I could be envious of instead?

	pianos (none / 0) (#35)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:02:16 AM PST

	Private ownership of a piano is far outside the means of any music student, excepting the independently wealthy. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Okay... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
	by jvance on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:39:05 AM PST

	... tell us about your marimbas then. jvance -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	I only own (none / 0) (#44)
	by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:37:56 PM PST

	a violin. -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	does it have a USB port? (none / 0) (#49)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 03:08:28 PM PST

	You can plug it into photoshop and make special effects. Computer art is cool; it's like nuclear weapons except without any reason not to press the button.

	Well,... (none / 0) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:57:55 AM PST

	I don't actually own a piano myself. I've got a Yamaha PSR-2. Well OK, it's actually a Casio SA-1. Christ, it's a start, isn't it?

	More Toys (5.00 / 1) (#36)
	by jvance on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 10:06:15 AM PST

	1999 Trek 5200 with Reynolds Ouzo Pro CF Fork, Rolfs, and SpeedPlays. 18 lbs. 1996 VooDoo Bizango, with various XTR and aftermarket Ti bits. 22.5 lbs. Seems the geeks on this site have quite varied interests. There's even a couple here that obsess over poetry, of all things. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	I couldn't resist (none / 0) (#43)
	by derek3000 on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:48:19 AM PST

	1998 Guild X-700 Archtop guitar 1938 Gibson Super 400 (1 of 19 made that year) The Super 400 actually has a nice story behind it. My grandaddy had bought a Gibson L5 (I think) and wasn't satisfied with it. He wrote a letter to Gibsons offices in New York. They responded with a train ticket and cab fare to get to the office, and told him to bring the guitar. He took the guitar there, and they blindfolded him and had a sales rep play the L5 and the Super 400 until he made a decision. So he chose the 400, and they gave it to him at no extra cost (it would have been about $145-$160 more expensive). I think they only made 19 that year because of the war. If he hadn't had it refinished and 'electrified', it would probably be worth about $25,000-$50,000. Also, he had an old Standel amp that sounded sweet. Only problem was that it electrocuted you every time you turned it on. Ah, the price we pay for our art... ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	More toys, and ntpd (none / 0) (#22)
	by The Mad Scientist on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 11:16:17 PM PST

	Just today bought two more machines - diskless 486s, intended to use together with el-cheapo monitors to supervise other machines I have in care. (Knowing what's happening gives me a feeling of being in control. And I am a huge sucker for blinking lights and large displays.) Also I forgot to mention a Microchip PIC programmer, soldering iron and a big box of parts, Tektronix 7313 4-channel oscilloscope (that refuses to work for longer periods, hadn't succeed in finding out why yet, probably overheating problem as it gets worse in summers), an ancient VCR and an old black'n'white TV, a dual stabilized power supply. A hot air gun, excellent for taking apart boards of discarded electronics (great supply of free parts). Going to get an EPROM reader/writer in next few weeks/months. Maybe I'll get the employer to pay for it, as a tax-free way to pay me for overtimes. Regarding ntpd, I am running "off-the-shelf" ntpd 4.1.0 on Linuxes, and TimeClient 1.23 on Windows machines. Main company server is Stratum 2, serving as synchronization source for all the office and home machines. Just now I am checking a GeodSoft Howto for freeware NTP clients for Windows; the TimeClient I use is cracked shareware and I prefer freeware solutions. And as I prefer opensource over only-freeware as well, it seems I'll pick NetTime; but I hadn't tested it yet. Reviews are favorable though.) (DAMN! I just found that by changing my ISP from dialup to microwaves I logically changed my IP, so naturally the machines stopped being synchronized as the access from my new IP wasn't allowed. Of course it was logged as errors. Of course I hadn't bothered to check the server logs. Arrrrrgh!)

	Short-lead parts suck! (none / 0) (#23)
	by Blarney on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:28:45 AM PST

	A hot air gun, excellent for taking apart boards of discarded electronics (great supply of free parts) I used to recycle parts from broken things into my own projects, but I eventually stopped because of too many unfortunate troublesome incidents. If you find a broken electronic device in the trash, there is at least one bad component in there. Probably more. At some point, one of them will end up inside your latest invention, causing it to go haywire, and you WILL be sorry. Plus anyone around will laugh at you when it turns out that the intermittent trouble is from a slightly singed something that you "found". Don't do it! Short-lead parts suck!

	Depends! (none / 0) (#25)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 04:48:52 AM PST

	If you find a broken electronic device in the trash, there is at least one bad component in there. Probably more. Depends on what components. Resistors and capacitors tend to be okay. Simple semiconductors (diodes, transistors) as well; they are dead more often than passive components, but usually At some point, one of them will end up inside your latest invention, causing it to go haywire, and you WILL be sorry. In design stage you should count with a part going bad - it happens to new parts too. If your design goes up in flames because of a single-part failure, then you had bigger problem. Even more it is important where you rely on input signals; I had a quad of transistors - a pair of totem-poles with a coil of stepper motor in between - exploding because of a single mistake: relying on software to not set both bits in the respective control pairs to 1 at once. (Then I rebooted the machine and at one point it set the outputs to all-H, and the rest of the story was an explosion and a cloud of smoke. The next version of the circuit had a chip to translate the input signals to output ones, ruling off dangerous combinations.) I had my share of problems with secondhand parts, but it was actually far less than the problems I inflicted to myself in design or realization stage - bad calculations, wires connected to wrong pins, using part that was electrical equivalent but overlooking that it wasn't full equivalent - that it had different pinout, forgetting that when you turn the board upside down that the pin 1 is at the right side instead of the left (Stupid! The only thing that could serve as an apology is my uptime at that moment.), and so...). Problematic parts aren't the biggest of my worries; if the circuit is designed the right way, a fried part will get identified with few tests. If a chip could cause a hard to identify failure, put it into a socket in design phase, and then replace as part of tests. Plus anyone around will laugh at you when it turns out that the intermittent trouble is from a slightly singed something that you "found". Production-grade systems where anything of value depends on the device have to be designed from new parts; proofs-of-concept and toys don't need to. Also, it's often better to have a suspicious but working spare part than no part at all; when you have a malfunction at 2:30am at Saturday night and a Monday-morning deadline, then there are no alternatives. I had nobody to laugh at me for troubles with a "singed" part (at least not without coming up with a similar story of their own). Nor for a failure at design stage. Maybe because the people either hadn't a clue what I am talking about, or had their own share of stories. (returning from a phonecall) Hmmmmmmm... Seems I will have to dust off my PIC assembler skills. Not that I hadn't different plans for the weekend. If I'd have a life, I wouldn't have time for it.

	Hi skilm! (4.50 / 2) (#8)
	by adolf on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:29:43 AM PST

	In the internet cafe I�m sitting in there must be at least 40 computers. There is also a stereo, a coffee machine and a soft-drinks fridge. I guess the computers must be networked somehow, but I can't see any wires directly connecting them, just ones that go into the wall. So maybe it�s a wireless network - any ideas guys? Bluetooth? W-CDMA? Also, the people who run the place have cleverly tweaked the settings so that you don�t get the AOL greetings page every time you log on. At home, I have a toaster and a fridge that�s not been networked yet. Sorry if I haven�t impressed you, but I�m saving up for my own computer. Unfortunately, I seem to spend most of my money on socialising.

	I run a Windows network (4.50 / 2) (#12)
	by Adam Rightmann on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 09:03:06 AM PST

	I have a Monorail Intel K6-2 running Win98SE, connected to an older, IBM P75 running Windows 98 via a hub. The P75 is mostly used to burn CD's of inspirational music, though when my oldest daughter is playing games on the Intel K6-2, I use that as a backup email/web surfing machine. It does make me wonder jsut how overpain network administrators are. To share drives. I just rightclick on a folder and select Sharing, hardly $75k/year work. A. Rightmann

	Bleh (4.50 / 2) (#16)
	by zikzak on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:49:34 AM PST

	The diary section of this site is rapidly turning into a great big pile of odiferous, festering wank.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.