|

10/06/04
No items Today
Last Logins
Recent Posts
Oct, 04 - 07:24 pm by Dammit Live chat...
Aug, 25 - 11:09 pm by fade... It's been awhile...
Mar, 15 - 02:56 pm by NamantH Here's my forum
Mar, 06 - 01:17 pm by Steve Hoffman Lasertron Tonight
Mar, 05 - 09:41 pm by Aahz I've got Thirty Tix to Darcy McGee's...

716BBS.com Today's Date:
Time:

Search Archives
range: from to | search:
Full Posts Titles Only | Newest First Oldest First

Zone Alarm Pro I'm trying out the 30 Day trial of Zone Alarm Pro... it's already running far better than Norton's Internet Scrutiny. I think Norton's was even slowing down my connection & page load time. Only problem with Zone Alarm, and they posted that they're working on it, is with the Windows Media Player 9, it's not compatible with firewalls but the workaround for now is to lower Internet Security to medium when viewing Streaming Video. I just reinstalled XP a few days ago... Linux is bye bye... I spit on the penquin! Hehehe... Blah! It didn't like my floppy drive, it didn't like my network card, and I knew it wouldn't like the modem cuz it's a winmodem but sheez, it's too much of a pain in the arse! posted by Unykornz - Unykornz Haven --- posted on Jan 9, 2003 at 4:47pm est --- post #000051 ---

I wasted money on Norton's Internet Security 2002 and not really interested in giving 2003 a shot because it does more damage than good. :( It mucks up if system restore is used, it's just a major pain. I thought Zone Alarm wasn't free anymore? Verizon warned against it that it had problems with DSL. I admit, I'm clueless on firewalls. :( But after a year of battling NIS, definately don't want that back. I'm just leary of wasting money on something that going to cause me more trouble again. posted by Unykornz - Unykornz Haven --- posted on Jan 7, 2003 at 12:47am est --- post #000050 ---

WinXP Security As far as I know, the built-in firewall stuff for WinXP is about as effective in preventing hackers as is the mud at the bottom of the Missisippi Delta. Get thyself a firewall proggy. Many people like ZoneAlarm, which meets your "free" critera... There are others, though, like BlackICE (Which no one seems to like anymore) NeoWatch (Which has been assimilated by Mcaffee and is now part of their firewall suite) or Norton Internet Security. posted by ChainMikey --- posted on Jan 6, 2003 at 3:26pm est --- post #000049 ---

Firewalls Not having XP, I dunno how good/effective their built-in firewall is. I've been using ZoneAlarm for a while now myself. We have cable modem here and ZoneAlarm seems to work just fine, haven't found any problems anywhere. And it's free. =) posted by Sarius --- posted on Jan 5, 2003 at 9:55pm est --- post #000048 ---

Several Questions... I've decided I'm going to reinstall everything on my computer, my new one (actually it's a year old now) again. And I'm not wanting to make the same mistakes again... hehehe. I'm convinced Norton's brand of stuff is pointless to stay with. I have DSL and figured I needed a good firewall but Norton seems to corrupt itself if you do a system restore in Windows XP... My current setup is a tri-boot of Red Hat 7.2, Windows XP and Windows 98. Norton's seemed to botch something up with my FTP settings in my registry because now, no firewall will allow SmartFTP to work, yet FTP Commander does work... it's confusing. Passive mode is enabled.. I'm just confused and ready to start over, this time leaving Linux out of the picture because that's a whole other headache in itself (it doesn't like my network card or my floppy drive). What do you all recommend for the firewall thing? Does the built in Windows XP firewall suffice with proper tweaking (disabling netbios & stuff) or should I go with something 3rd party? Has anyone tried sygate or kerio's firewalls? I will have at least Windows 98 and XP on this computer (Dell Dimension 4300 1.4 GHz) because there's stuff I still want to run that Windows XP doesn't like, including my digital camera which was purchased in 2000. What I plan to do is, after reinstalling everything, use Powerquest's Drive Image to make a backup of the initial clean install and use those disks as my install disks so when Windows 98 mucks up, as it always does after a certain period of time, I can reinstall it w/out having to reinstall XP also... since Windows 98 needs that master boot record to itself. I guess the main thing is... do I need a firewall beyond what's built into XP... and if so, what's the best choice, preferablly freeware. Norton's changes it's settings if a system restore is done in XP, so per Symantec, it should be uninstalled and reinstalled if a system restore is done. I find that a bit annoying. I like the system restore feature (akin to the old scanreg options) if I install something that I don't like and want to revert to a previous setup. I hope this all made sense... hehehe posted by Unykornz - Unykornz Haven --- posted on Jan 5, 2003 at 2:37pm est --- post #000047 ---

I'll pass... I'll wait until they come up with something that either has a battery that lasts longer, a higher top speed, or doesn't make me look like a retard while I'm riding it. posted by Chainsaw --- posted on Apr 29, 2002 at 8:12am est --- post #000046 ---

Sir Isaac Rasputin. Is anyone out there at all interested in the Segway? You know, that goofy two wheeler that's supposed to revolutionize the world. I think it'll be a while before people are ready to slow back down to 15 mph in the fast lane. posted by Fairow --- posted on Apr 27, 2002 at 3:08am est --- post #000045 ---

A GPS and a pair of comfortable shoes, and I'm gone! Well, I went Geocaching this weekend... What is Geocaching? Basically, people go out into the middle of nowhere and leave a container of stuff. You job is to input the coordinates of the cache and then navigate there via your trusty GPS unit, find the stuff, sign the log, and maybe take something from the cache and leave something of your own there. Yesterday I decided I could do for some exercise, so I set out on foot to find some of the caches near my apartment. Found three, and walked a grand total of ~7.5 miles! Had a great time, too! posted by Chainsaw - Geocaching.Com --- posted on Apr 15, 2002 at 3:36pm est --- post #000044 ---

Catch 21 Yes but *my* philosophy is the one that says all ways of looking at things are nothing more than ways of looking at things, including this one. :P -MMM posted by Octavian --- posted on Feb 24, 2002 at 2:31am est --- post #000043 ---

Playing Devil's Advocate. Sorry this took so dang long. The ol' WWW hasn't been in my hands in quite some time. Anyway, Octavian, for someone who doesn't believe in a way, you certainly are sticking by your philosophy. Just like any philosophy (and/or science) no one can be proven right or wrong. In fact, the very idea that there exists a right or wrong (or a winning argument in this instance) is a biased philosophy. Instead, I think Northstar is Mayonaisse and you're Miracle Whip. And everyone knows that either of those get stinky--to our human-kinds-of-perspective--if left out too long. posted by Fairowranthurus --- posted on Feb 24, 2002 at 1:44am est --- post #000042 ---

Playing God But we actively create the entropy and the constants that we perceive through the act of searching and finding them. You cannot have your cake and eat it to as you did in the sentence asking to put philosophy aside and look at the scientific method on an infinite timeline. The scientific method IS a philosophy. The scientific method will not and cannot reach the 'it'ness of the universe because it is a human made and human driven process and thus, for all its claims of objectivity, is necessarily and unavoidably subjective. Mind you this is not to say it is without its uses. Obviously it is a very beneficial way of approaching the world. My caveat here has always been not to fall into the trap of believing that it is the ONE TRUE way of seeing 'it'. Way called way is not true way. -MMM posted by Octavian --- posted on Feb 11, 2002 at 2:46pm est --- post #000041 ---

Technology and Posthumanism Mathematics and Physics are used to describe the world around us. True. Putting philosophy and metaphysics aside for a moment, why can't the scientific method (given an infinite amount of time) eventually evolve to a point where it does prove a given fact - such as the Entropy of the Universe is expanding. It is more than a definition of what is around us- but an accurate explanation of nature. Perhaps the paradox is that we will never be able to fully understand anything absolutely - but then again I see all kinds of CONSTANTS in the universe. posted by Northstar --- posted on Feb 11, 2002 at 9:05am est --- post #000040 ---

Dag nabbit! You and your peace-making. <Sigh> So did anyone around here ever buy an Aibo? posted by Fairow --- posted on Feb 10, 2002 at 12:34pm est --- post #000039 ---

gnihtoN Nothing at all. That last statement doesn't overstep our boundaries to my knowledge. : ) By the way...the notion of universal constants are part of the scientific philosophy and also do not exist independant of us. *grin* -MMM posted by Octavian --- posted on Jan 30, 2002 at 10:15pm est --- post #000038 ---

Right, Wright, Rite... You can't build science on trial and error and not depend on universal constants. You either except set parameters and develop technology based on those principles, or you simply abandon the very basis of growth. It is truly arrogance to believe science could ever properly unravel the driving forces behind the universe (or manage to find the way). Yet it's equal arrogance to believe they can't. As with any philosophy, this can't be proven wrong--or right. Gravity may very well be universally consistent. You can't know that it's not. Just as I can't know that it is. But if science remains based in assumptions that can be proven consistently (and saves time by ignoring philosophers ;) ), and this eventually leads to a simulation that can--at least to our perspective--properly emulate the universe, then we can see one version of our future. Or at least an evolution of our own simulation. What's wrong with that statement? posted by Fairow --- posted on Jan 30, 2002 at 4:08pm est --- post #000037 ---

wrong wrong wrong Because these parameters, randomness, entropy...all of these things are human created. You cannot divorce us from our own perspectives. They are one and the same. The very concept of entropy is part of the human perspective and does not exist independant of us. Science, mathematics...these are only philosophies among many, none of which are the ONE way that is true and proper for perceiving the universe. You cannot find the truth because there is no truth to find. We create the truth as we look for it. None of this is to say that we should discount all scientific discovery or throw away anything science has to offer us. It is an excellent philosophy...a way of looking at the universe that has openned a great many possibilities. But the inherent danger in the usefullness of technology is that people forget that it isn't THE way but rather just A way. Every uncovering covers over other things. The belief that all things can be quantified uncovers a great deal of data at the expense of remembering that these 'objective' observations are anything but. -MMM posted by Octavian --- posted on Jan 30, 2002 at 6:04am est --- post #000036 ---

Yet consider... In any randomly generated system, weeding out human influence is as easy as 1, 2, 3734523.4359 See, you just plug in some constantly randomly generated variables for the Big Bang. Then flag various details that actually occur in the "real" earth. For instance, tell the simulation to look for the Statue of Liberty, an Eskimo's sneeze, and a woman in Montana's birthmark that's shaped like the Pieta. If the program ever matches those three set parameters, you have a dang close match to present day earth. If it never matches anything, then the properties assigned by the programmers involved are indeed tainted by partial prejudice--and they have to keep trying til they get it "right". If entropy isn't chaotic at all, but instead obscure pattern, then we can eventually identify and emulate anything in the Universe. It all boils down to parameters--which (without chaos) are universally constant. With or without our pesky human comprehensions. posted by Fairow --- posted on Jan 29, 2002 at 11:53pm est --- post #000035 ---

However... ...you still completely fail to address the 'limited nature of human perspective' part of my argument, which is rather central. -MMM posted by Octavian --- posted on Jan 29, 2002 at 10:46pm est --- post #000034 ---

A Newborn Naysayer. It really only needs a handful (in comparison) of variables surrounding the Big Bang--assuming the Big Bang itself is legit. Every other variable it could generate itself. I'm just looking at technology (and science, more importantly) as an ever-expanding and evolving field. Something without limits that could eventually account for an infinite amount of data. After all, to any individual, what is this universe but one giant simulation? Someone already beat me to this idea. So IF we develop technology capable of incapsulating the universe, couldn't we technically--in theory--see one version of our future? I just find that concept interesting. See, if we can one day see into probable futures, we'll have no need for personal development. We'll simply steal the work of our soon to be altered future selves. That, in and of itself, could change the very fabric of humanity. I mean, we'd have access to the destination without any of the journey. Assuming that is, that humankind will eventually stick around long enough to get anywhere. posted by Fairow --- posted on Jan 28, 2002 at 1:57am est --- post #000033 ---

you still don't account for... ...an absolutely immense number of variables. First off this supposed program would need to have EVERY possible piece of data in the known universe for it to be able to correctly project in the future. On top of that, all of this data would be hopelessly limited by our human perspective. You have an unhealthy desire to know everything, Fairow :) -MMM posted by Octavian --- posted on Jan 27, 2002 at 10:04pm est --- post #000032 ---

powered by AMProSoft Message Board v2.05

This webpage is copyright © AMProSoft 2003.
Published in Buffalo, NY