It's not like updating via a router is the only choice. If you are hosting something on that IP you are going to have at least one box that can run a software client to update.

Not always. Think about a remote security DVR, or a remote (mostly) brainless NAS hard disk for backups, and you'll be on the right track: The fact that there is a network connection and some gear that needs a dynamic hostname does not also mean that there is also a PC capable of running arbitrary software.

Throwing a cheap router into the mix (which PPPOE users needed to have anyway) just plain fixed that, for a lot of folks, for a long time. This (actually rather old) announcement changes things somewhat.

This is important because some people might not have seen an email from DynDNS for a decade or more, and will be very surprised when their things stop working after all this time.

I used to use afraid.org, but switched to something else when their domains inexplicably weren't resolving for a long time ago for what seemed to last a week or two.

Much more recently, I just buy my own domains for the pittance that it costs per year, pick a free DNS provider (Zone Edit still works fine, for instance), and do the dynamic DNS thing that way. If I ever find that the DNS provider is down for some reason, I can fix it myself.

DVDs can be 480i, sure -- it makes the most sense to use 480i when dealing with stuff that was originally shot with NTSC cameras, for instance.

But among the other formats possible, they can also be 480p anamorphic, which is a 4:3 picture squeezed down by the display to 16:9, which makes more sense for filmed material. Almost all of the DVDs I have are 480p anamorphic.

It's always been this way. DVD players attached to older TVs do output 480i (or else there would be no picture), but that's got little to do with the source material on the disc.

If the machine serving as an iSCSI host has sufficient RAM, it already almost works that way:

1. Client A boots up. Loads OS from solid-state disk. Subsequent clients are likely to load directly from the server's RAM cache, which just got populated automatically.
2. Client A runs a game. Loads game from disk. Subsequent clients are likely to load directly from the server's RAM cache...

So the first load is at disk (SSD) speed, and the subsequent loads are at RAM speed (although both instances are limited to Gig-E speed).

The server uses a shared copy-on-write system for each client's image, making this a super-simple, zero-cost arrangement with almost all of the advantages of a well-managed RAM disk, none of the difficulties involved in managing it, and none of the associated problems.

Meanwhile, it's not at all clear what advantage a hardware RAM disk would ever have in the real world, since such things are so easily implemented in software and are always cheaper/better/faster that way...unless the system in question is already out of RAM capacity or has some software dependency that requires a RAM disk to talk SATA.

For instance, I had a 2-megabyte ISA expansion board on my 10MHz XT back in 1991. I used half of it for a RAM disk which I kept some oft-used programs on, and half of it for cache. But this only made sense because the price was right, the system was already at its maximum capacity of 640k, and the disks I had (ST-225 and ST-419) were murderously slow. It was a night-and-day difference in performance for the stuff I was doing with that box.

But for modern consumer applications (which include gaming), systems today commonly support relatively huge amounts of relatively cheap RAM. This obviously allows for fairly large RAM disks without drama if it makes sense for some reason (and it doesn't, here).

FACT: Post as something other than AC and people might take you seriously.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

If you want some of any of these, I'll be happy to oblige. But I don't think it would be any closer to the truth than the previous linkage.

Van drivers can install concave mirrors on their side mirrors that give them a better view. And they certainly can see out the *driver* side.

I understand how to optimize my mirrors to minimize blind spots. Most people don't, from what I can tell, but I believe I've got it figured out pretty well.

I had my smallish cargo van parked in the yard to make room in the driveway for a party. A couple of days later, I decided to move it back to the driveway.

Backing from the yard to the street, I'm craning around, watching my mirrors, going slow, and paying attention, navigating my way between the stump of the big walnut tree we cut down and the real-estate sign for the lot next door, crossing the sidewalk, looking at length for traffic... And then: bang, I found a telephone pole. It's been there forever, but it was invisible, hidden in the blind spot between the bodywork on the right side of the van and the window on the back.

So now I'm waiting for a warm day to pull the plastic bumper cover off and straighten out the steel.

But if it were a bike or a pedestrian, it would've been exactly the same. No amount of stick-on convex mirrors would have helped: If they (other people) were aligned similarly to how that pole was, they'd have been invisible too -- whether backing up slowly or going down the highway.

Seeing out the driver side isn't a whole lot better with the mirrors aimed properly, unless I open the window and hang my head outside to look around.

*new concept*, indeed.

(Also, too: This word, concave: It does not mean what you think it means. Please try to understand the meaning of the words that you use, especially if you're going to use them in a condescending fashion. Thanks!)

Retraining should only happen if you retest and fail.

And in that event, the free traffic law pamphlet from the DMV ought to be enough study material for anyone who has already been licensed and has their wits about them to retrain themselves.

Anyone should be welcome to retest after failure exactly as often as new licensees are (which varies by state) without formal retraining. If the pamphlet isn't enough help them pass the test again (and again, and again), either improve the pamphlet or let the non-driving-motherfucker pay for their own damned classes: They're the ones who forgot how to drive, not the rest of us.

The state already paid for driver's ed once, and continuing education shouldn't be the state's problem since the driver (if they've ever paid attention) should still be driving properly without it.

(And if you think this is unfair to the elderly, maybe you can solicit AARP or somesuch to help out. Maybe they can help organize some group meetings on off-days at the local bingo hall or something. I'll be elderly myself, one of these days, and I'm OK with my mindset.)

I've never had that problem, and I make a point of using empty/abandoned lots for driving practice at least several times a year.

Perhaps you're doing it wrong.

Are these like the "alcohol-related" crash statistics that include instances of completely sober people driving to/from the store to get some beer, and non-drinkers hitting other people who are on their way to get beer, and people who are involved in an accident when they've still got some beer that they bought last week in the trunk, and people hitting pedestrians who are carrying beer, and pedestrians throwing empty beers at moving cars, that are used to prop up drunk driving propaganda?

Because, frankly, anything from whatever group wants to call themselves drive-safely.net seems about as likely as the above to be truthful and honest with their statistics.

For the record: I caused a car accident in 1996. I was very tired after working a double shift and I was fiddling with the radio, looking for interesting music. Better ban that too.

Oooh, oooh! Can I play too?

I caused a car accident when I was sad because my sister had killed herself a few days prior. I lost focus for a moment, and ran right into the stopped car in front of me.

I think we should ban driving while sad. So much for funeral processions...

Are you going to just drop a lit cigarette into your lap?

It wouldn't be the first time -- why not?

My reaction to a lit cigarette in my lap, last time I had that experience, was far more graceful than the last time a horrible fucking spider crawled out of the dash vent and started taunting me.

And an AC chimes in with an orthogonally-related retort.

Thanks, AC, but I prefer threads.

Re: Deer and muscle memory.

The singular time I hit a deer, it was about the worst-case scenario possible: It was a dark and empty divided highway, there weren't any lights around except those on my own car, and in retrospect the fucker must have been running across the road full-tilt: I remember hearing its horrible little hooves scratching against the asphalt for an instant.

But I don't remember processing "is that a deer? is it headed toward me? should i slow down, or should i accelerate? how much? when?"

Instead, the thought process went like this: *glimpse of something appearing at the edge of the headlights, just to the left, moving fast* *smash brake pedal*

"Wow, that seatbelt hurts, the new brakes are working well" *near darkness as the popup headlights are both sheared off by the carcass* "Piss. I guess I'm pulling over to the shoulder now." *deer rolls down off hood* "Yep, here we are. And...stopped."

"Is everyone OK?"

All in the time it takes a fourth-gen Firebird to get from 65 to 0 in an ABS-assisted, pedal-to-the-firewall stop, which isn't much: The debris trail was remarkably short.

In terms of distraction, I wasn't on the phone, but I was already shaken and mentally busy from an almost-physical altercation a couple of minutes prior that I was replaying in my head and discussing with my passengers, and I was slowed somewhat by the couple of beers that I'd had earlier (I had been running sound at a private party).

But handling the deer incident, as well as mechanically possible, was automatic. Like riding a bike, or countersteering, or catching a baseball. I don't remember deciding to brake, because I didn't decide to -- I was already doing it by the time the decision-making part of my brain caught up with what was happening.

Would I have behaved differently if I had a phone pressed to my ear? Dunno.

Would other people behave differently? Perhaps. I've spent a good portion of my life pushing vehicles to their limits (and sometimes beyond) just for fun, whereas most folks haven't. It's quite likely that there are things that I do automatically that some other people can't.

But I'm certainly not the only person capable of doing this. Just as I can't even see my hands as I type this, and I'm not the only person around who can touch-type effectively. It might be a little unusual, but to say it can't be done is plainly false because I've done it.

And if I can do it, anyone can. I'm not special. I've just got more practice.

No. I think it is plain that what he was saying is that the counter-argument about brain-power is shit: There are obviously a lot of smart people in the world who can't multitask, and a lot of stupid people who can -- and vice-versa.

It's not at all clear that intelligence has anything at all to do with multitasking ability.