 |
|
|
That's like removing the brakes before going on a tour throuzgh the alps, and if you survive it, you say "hey! It worked!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds like fun, when's the trip?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a long, long time Microsoft allowed a product key of all '1's to enable almost any product. I don't recall exactly when they disabled it, but it may have been even as recent as Win2K that it still worked. I raised many an eyebrow at customer sites when installing an o/s or software product and would zip right past the product key check with this trick.
QRZ? de WAØTTN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not just all '1's, but any set of numbers that added up to '7' if I remember correctly (7 '1's worked obviously)
I had a big argument with a manager that insisted that every product code on the CD jewel case was tied to that particular CD. I.e. the product code would only work on that physical disc... A few installs with (pseudo-)randomly selected numbers that added up to '7' eventually convinced him 
I have no blog...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liam O'Hagan wrote: Not just all '1's, but any set of numbers that added up to '7' if I remember correctly (7 '1's worked obviously)
The digits had to add up to a multiple of 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, the short-lived TV series At Ease[^] had a base commander who had a password of "6" -- because, he said, he knew another commander whose password was the names of the twelve apostles in reverse alphabetical order... and was consequently the last to know anything. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome!!!! Thanks for the link, I'd forgotten about it (I knew it was coming up, just forgot the exact day).
And to think, in another decade or so, we'll have another chance (maybe, if you say pretty, pretty, pretty please with sugar on top) to go to the Moon, just like we did 40 years ago! Sigh, what went wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Sigh, what went wrong
Like all other industries, we automated it because it was cheaper.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Sigh, what went wrong
Nobody made any money out of it. Sad, but true.
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().textAin't that Groovy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: go to the Moon, just like we supposedly did 40 years ago!
FTFY
tin foil hat anyone?
I believe we did get to the moon, but I couldn't resist the jab!
If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end.What is Multiple Sclerosis[ ^]?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goober! I suppose the conspiracy idiots will be out in force today. There's new footage about to be released of this anyways, isn't there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: here's new footage about to be released of this anyways, isn't there?
afaik no. It was first reported by a UK tabloid(?) paper, and NASA promptly issued a denial to bad astronomy[^] saying it was a hoax.
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up.
The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote: tin foil hat anyone
You need a tin-foil suit for the moon! I thought everybody knew that.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote: I believe we did get to the moon, but I couldn't resist the jab
Good, because if you didn't I'd have to unleash some Bad Astronomy[^] on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like one of the tinfoil hat brigade voted you down!
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's worse is ... the shuttle program ends next year. NASA has no manned flights, coming from NASA, for at least another 5 years.
14 years, or so, ago, NASA started asking congress for funding to replace/update/upgrade/move on from, the Shuttle Program; they never received the funding necessary.
So now they'll be hitching rides from the SpaceX boys ... and anyone else that has a rocket ...
Hopefully the private sector will get us back to our rightful place in the space race.
Emmm ... Google Lunar Lander ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sucks
Douglas Troy wrote: Hopefully the private sector will get us back to our rightful place in the space race.
Please, the private sector can't even regulate itself enough to handle loans for houses, much less put reliable spacecraft together!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not forget that the government regulates (read as screws up ) rocket lunches in the U.S.A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Please, the private sector can't even regulate itself enough to handle loans for houses, much less put reliable spacecraft together!
So what are you saying?!?! I shouldn't have applied for that Home Rocket Loan!!!
Damn-it. I KNEW it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just say I hope it doesn't all go up in flames!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Let's just say I hope it doesn't all go up in flames!
Don't worry, I've created the entire Rocket Automation system using SilverLight, WCF and WF ... I'm sure it will be fine.
Hey ... do you smell smoke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, I'm already heading for the door!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most excellent. I remember watching it on a little black and white TV with rabbit ears.
Jim Crafton wrote: Sigh, what went wrong
An aspect little spoken of in the moon race was the spirit of competition not in the exploration sense, but rather the military. In the early days of nuclear posturing between the US and USSR, the thought of one side being able to establish operations on the moon was rather unnerving. Not that you could effectively launch an ICBM from the craters of the moon, but nonetheless in a military sense it was very much "the high ground."
While those of us who were there remember the excitement and spirit of exploration, the reality of the matter is that the political will to drive the program and accomplish the landing was fueled from this unspoken truth. Nations don't take big steps unless there's something in it for them. This is why landing humans on Mars isn't getting the traction that the moon did. There's nothing for us but the adventure, and for political will, that's simply not enough. It has to bring major, tangible benefits to the nation. Since the scientific aspects of discovery can clearly be accomplished with amazing little robots, it's unlikely that we'll see a Niel (or Nell) Armstrong walking on the face of Mars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Until a massive asteroid comes at us, massive climate damage makes the planet uninhabitable for humans, or some other man-made disaster occurs that does the same thing, and then everyone will wonder, "Gee, maybe keeping all our eggs in one basket wasn't such a good idea after all". At some point we will almost certainly need an alternate habitat beside the Earth. Of course that's not really a tangible benefit until it's far too late, and given our current progress in space, it probably will be. Hopefully things will turn out differently.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Question 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
