 | | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Yet another definition clash -- LOL! -- this just keeps getting confusinger and confusinger. Now I'm totally confusticated. :) In common English usage, does the phrase "common denominator" mean "denominators in common" (common within some (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Yeah, maybe I'll stop now. :) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Uh, I think that'd be "inconsistency in my bookmark file". For a while, we were pedantic about the something-can't-be-b...d-a-domain rule, but then we decided to give in to the New World Order of web/dns. *grin* (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that makes sense. By definition, all things that are in common occur the same amount -- i.e. everywhere. 'Cause otherwise, it wouldn't be common. Another possible alternative phrase might be "broadest common denominator"... (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I didn't mean welcoming and accommodating the most infrequent ingredients per se -- glittery things like Shockwave or RealAudio, for example. I meant welcoming and accommodating browsers which happen to support special or infrequent (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Aha -- I think that's a key point! In numbers and divisors and factors, the isomorphic example to "simplest thing common to all" is probably the lowest common factor (always 1) or lowest common prime factor between a set of numbers. 1 would be (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: fun fun fun - new BP6 dual celeron system
|
|
(...) Well, after many hours of testing, I've decided to run these at 522 max (95x5.5). NT just doesn't seem to run too happily for some reason on this system at 550. I could probably try to tweak it out some more, but for what I'm going to be using (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
Matthew: It is refreshing to see your pedantry and stubbornness so openly on display. I don't feel quite so alone! And as for correcting what arguably is an egregious error(1), I'm not done using my lance yet, you'll have to wait your turn. In the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Oh...sorry, I left out the "limit as n approaches infinity" part. ;-) (...) I wonder that too. At first glance, they seem *very* incompatible. I'm not an English scholar, so I can't really say. But I think what may have happened is that the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) Dictionaries, of course, are just tools reflecting common usage. Or supposed to be. That doesn't mean that common usage is correct. :) On another tangent, since we're in .off-topic already -- I really think the word "dumpster" has entered the (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) That's the direction I'm coming at this from. Denominator, in its non-math sense, means "that which gives a name to something". Applied to the topic at hand, that very logically means what sorts of documents the browser is said to understand. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <380a066d.171574518@...et.com>... (...) common, (...) number (...) into (...) b.1884> (...) several (...) even (...) I have to be honest Todd... much of your math was just over my head. Sorry. :( (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Lowest Common Denominator (was: Re: Lego.com - new look)
|
|
(...) I think the most accurate math term is actually the "greatest common factor" or "greatest common divisor" (GCF or GCD for short), which refers to the largest natural number which equally divides two whole numbers in question. In non-math (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego.com - new look
|
|
[Followup-to lugnet.off-topic.geek] (...) *grin* (...) Oh, certainly an amazing number of people use it wrongly. But a lot of people also say that they "could care less", when they mean that they couldn't. People don't think about what they're (...) (25 years ago, 17-Oct-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: fun fun fun - new BP6 dual celeron system
|
|
(...) oooh.. (dreaming of faster cgi server for DAT explorer) (...) Now that sounds like an intentional "feature". I remember a few (ok, many) years ago I was experimenting with overclocking 486 DX/2-66's. I got an early version that ran solid up to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | fun fun fun - new BP6 dual celeron system
|
|
Didn't sleep much last night, probably won't tonight either. Having a blast playing with my new dual celeron system. Here's the specs: Abit BP6 (supports dual Socket 370 Celerons) 2x oem Celeron 366's (running at 550) 2x GlobalWin "bigarse" (...) (25 years ago, 16-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Yeah, I dunno. Looks to be all BSD license, which is fine with me... (Oooh, let's fan the flames: yet another good reason it's not "GNU/Linux") (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) That worked, thanks! :-, I wonder why these utils were never GNU'd... Oh, well, thanks again. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) If you're looking for Windows progs I think I got a bunch of this stuff from the "Virtually Unix" site once upon a time. I don't have the URL, but you could search for it. I think my version of traceroute is called hopcount.exe though. Not (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: www.routersim.com ?
|
|
(...) I was mostly kidding. :) We have several 7513's and I know some of the modules alone in those things cost tens of thousands of dollars. Heck, the power supplies are several thousand each from what I was told. Our instructor today (Cisco class, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) I don't think they're GNU. My ping program came from the base linux netkit, and traceroute (originally) from <URL:ftp://ftp.ee.lb...te.tar.Z>. (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
go look at www.bitwizard.nl/mtr/ They claim to have a ping/tracroute package that runs with/via autoconf. This is source, but they have binary for Red Hat and freeBSD. I'll grab a copy tonight, and with luck and time out from building things <grin> (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Well. I've no quick answers today either. <grump> Haven't got Linux moiunted on a box local to me, so I can't check that way either. I'll have a look at the Caldera distro running on my development box at home tonight. You know... the back of (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: www.routersim.com ?
|
|
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message news:slrn80a21e.st.c...utk.edu... (...) cool, thanks I'm going to have to check it out... (...) Most companies will most definitly NOT let you touch one of their routers, understadable (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Checked that, and checked that also. Binutils seems to be primarily compiler tools. Fileutils is basic file management, copying, moving, linking, etc. Textutils is basic text manipulation tools. Inetutils is a decent suite of servers and (...) (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Erm... binutils, perhaps? And try the Cygnus distro whilst you're at it.... Cheers, Roger (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | GNU pkg for ping, traceroute, etc. (Was: Sluggish nntp performance)
|
|
(...) Which GNU package do I get ping and traceroute and host, etc. from? They're not in inetutils; they doesn't seem to be anywhere... Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | www.routersim.com ?
|
|
Just taking a chance here that someone might have used the product these people sell... I want to get my CCNA after I finish my MCSE but while I may get some good hands-on experience working with switches in our labs I probably won't get to play (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Yeah. It's probably an OC3, which is about 155.52 megabits/second. (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Oof. I shoulda seen that one! :-, What does the 115M mean? 155 megabits per second? Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) nslookup. It's prettier than 'host', but tells you basically the same thing. I got the 155M out of the hostname. It's nice when people name their routers meaningfully. :) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Sorry, bad choice of words in that last post. I knew that the problem wasn't at your end. -- Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (URL) Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3804b7b9.795349...net.com... (...) now (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) It's not LUGNET's NNTP performance that you're having touble with. It's some net clog problem somewhere. Maybe multiple problems. --Todd (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) What tool do you use for that? whois comes up with a blank, and host (1) just says "pos3-1-155M.cr1.JFK...nter.net". Anyway, my packets don't even see that network -- they get stuck somewhere between: 6 <10 ms 10 ms <10 ms (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Yeah, exactly. Most likely one of the routers is overloaded -- if one checks the dns for the gateways at 8 & 9, one finds the phrases "155M" and "622M", which seems like a lot of bandwidth to me. (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) Oh, I've been a manager... but I stopped. Didn't like it and neither did any of the people I was managing. *no idea* why, really. LOL... <snipped excellent explanation> (...) Lemme see if I got it then, in this example the problem lies either (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
Tonight everything is running fast again! It has been a week since I have had normal LUGNET NNTP performance but now it seems to be fine. -- Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (URL) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sluggish nntp performance
|
|
(...) If I were talking to a manager, I'd say: don't worry, we'll take care of it. *grin* But: IP packets have a property called Time-To-Live. It's a counter, and each time a packet goes through a gateway, it's decremented. (By default, most packets (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Which telnet emulator for Win32?
|
|
Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:37F93F6D.EA670D...@io.com... (...) my (...) surprising (...) currently (...) worse (...) anyone got one for windows ce P/PC while there at it? I really gotta be able to check my e-mail and read (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
