Pangloss

Go to Start, Control Panel, Network Connections, and locate the "Local Area Connection" module. Right-click on it (either right there in the menu, or by opening the Network Connections app itself and then right-clicking on Local Area Connection), and select Properties. Does "File and Printer Sharing for Microsoft Networks" appear on the list of modules loaded in the little window there? If not, you won't be able to share anything on that computer. (That's a "server" module -- you don't have to have it on the "client" computer; only the computer you intend to pull files FROM (or put files ONTO).)

Meaning?

Is File and Printer Sharing installed in the LAN stack?

It occurs to me that a predator could try to sneak in, but given the level of awareness of the predator issue in Florida, the ease of use of the Florida predator database, and the fact that wireless laptops outsold desktop PCs over the last year, I'm thinking that a confined space containing thousands of stressed-out parents is probably the last place a sexual predator wants to be during the current hurricane season. (grin) Regarding this point: I just want to mention that every single incorporated community south of Orlando and east of the Everglades is considering a 2500-foot rule, and if they all pass them (which seems likely), there will be virtually no place south of Orlando or east of the Everglades where a sexual predator can live. (And that includes the "accidentally slept with a 17 year old with a fake ID that he met at a bar" variety, which are not included in the hurricane shelter ban.)

I want to point out that your original question had nothing to do with Internet sharing. You need to be really, really specific when you ask questions, because you're going to get really, really specific answers. (grin) Normally when you connect computers together (by attaching their networking cables to a hub or switch) you don't need a router, because they're all on the same "network" (or "subnet"). Unfortunately one of the quirks of modern computing is that when you put two network adapters into a computer the OS network layers see this as an example of what's usually referred to as "multi-homing" (or similar names), meaning that it thinks you want to connect your computer (or server) to multiple networks. That's what we did in the old days (ala 15 years ago), when routers cost thousands of dollars. The server would then translate packets back and forth between the networks, a process called "routing". (Which is why first generation standalone routers were all based on standard PC computers. Cisco kept 486 assembly lines running for years.) This is not the case when you connect two hubs or switches together. They don't see that as multi-homing, they see it as expanding the network. They're just designed that way. So when you attach your fifth computer to a second NIC in your fourth computer, the operating system is going to see that as an example of routing. ICS lets you share a connection to an Internet modem (cable modem or DSL box) that way, but there's no "Sharing" option for a standard LAN connection. You might be able to kludge something together involving the Bridging options or some hacking on the system registry, but my guess is that it's not worth the effort. Buy a bigger hub, or borrow one from a friend.

Oh ok. Well scratch the above then, but I'll leave it in there for future reference. Sounds like you need to configure an IP address for the computer, or set up a DHCP server.

Did you share your printer or any folders on your computer? You have to actually tell it to do that at the folder/printer level. Try this: - Open the Run window (Windows-R) - Type in the following: \\computername\c$ (replace "computername" with the name of the computer you're accessing) - Enter "Administrator" for the username, and the password you created for the administrator when you installed Windows XP. (If you don't know it, this won't work.) That should show you the root of the C drive, indicating that file sharing is indeed working.

Why do you like Debian for this, Dave? I'm afraid I don't have any Linux experience outside of Red Hat, Mandrake and a couple of the turnkey router solutions like IPCop, so I'm often curious why you guys suggest specific distros for certain cases.

Hurricane shelters are typically elementary or high schools (that is to say, buildings normally used to educate children ranging in age from 5 to 18). They'll typically stick people in the hallways, classrooms and/or gymnasiums, generally just sitting around on the floor or sleeping on cots, etc. All mingled together, with minimal personnel (usually a social worker keeping names at the door; sometimes a police officer or fireman, but not often).

Just curious which Java IDE you folks like best. I've been using NetBeans, recently upgrading from 3.6 to 4.1, but I'm not a Java expert at all. I've also played around with JBuilder and Eclipse. I like the GUI-building features in JBuilder, but I kinda prefer the NetBeans environment in general. But I'm curious what other folks think.

Hey guys, I'm trying to take my Java programming knowledge to a higher level. I'm up to speed in the basics of writing simple programs in Java, and I'm currently using NetBeans 4.1 and the 1.5 (5.0) SDK and JRE. I can write simple (console-based) applets for school projects, and I've run through the simple tutorials on how to (for example) build an consume a simple web service, set up a basic web application, and construct a simple GUI for a standalone app. What I'm kinda hoping for is a more advanced book or web site that kinda starts at this point and kicks me off in the direction of more advanced application programming in Java. Ideally the book or site would be aimed at someone who's worked at that level in ASP.NET and VB.NET. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I can grab books from Amazon, but it's always nice to get suggestions before spending money. Thanks. (I'm checking with other resources as well, so don't feel bad if you don't have any suggestions.)

The Florida Department of Corrections issued a statement yesterday saying that sexual offenders are to be denied access to shelters in the event of a hurricane. The reason for this is that children at shelters, while typically under parental supervision, are in an unfamiliar environment, and may not be watchable at all times (for example, if the parents fall asleep, which of course is a common occurence at a shelter). As an alternative, the department has set up a program that will allow sexual offenders to enter any state prison. All state prisons are protected against hurricanes to at least the degree that designated shelters are. They won't be incarcerated, but will simply be given access to designated shelter areas, such as meeting rooms or waiting areas, and be free to come and go as they please. They will be subject to the normal rules of all prison visitors, such as wearing an ID tag and being subject to a search, so there are some disadvantages here compared with a shelter. This only applies to sexual offenders who are designated as being disallowed from contact with minors. Here's a link to a story on this at the Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale's main newspaper): http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-0807sexoffenders,0,798350.story?coll=sfla-news-florida What do you guys think? A reasonable compromise?

Yup, sounds like a perfect opportunity for a Linux file server. You could add an 8gb DVD burner for about $40. Backup your local workstations to the server and then outload to DVD for offline storage in case the HDs fail.

These figures have been disputed over the years, to varying degrees, but I can't say that you're wrong (and in fact I tend to agree with you). The other apsect of this that should be considered is that the Japanese might have been brought to surrender by other means, such as continued firebombing. But my reaction to that is that it doesn't really matter if you die in a firebombing or an atomic explosion -- what's the difference? And it seems unlikely that the Japanese would have surrendered under the situation of continued firebombing. They were going to fight to the last man, and only the shock of the quickness and totality of the single-explosion atomic bombs brought them around. But in fact that's not actually how the game is played anymore. We could have nuked (or otherwise flattened) cities in Iraq and Afghanistan now, just as we nuked our enemy in 1945. We chose not to, at a cost of 1500 American lives (so far), because we universally agreed, without even having to have a debate about the issue, that it would be a moral wrong. We chose differently in WW2. Beginning in the Battle of Britain, the decision was made on both sides that that was going to be a "total war", involving every segment of the population, including civilian. Cities were bombed for the specific purpose of "destroying their willingness to wage war" (Churchill?). We don't do that anymore. In my case that means something very personal -- the likely death of my grandfather in a Japanese prison camp in the Philippines, and not having him around when I was growing up. As you can see, I have, in fact, given thought to the implications of not using the atomic bomb. So, "with all due respect", let's hold off on the judgemental rhetoric. This is a respectful discussion. I agree. I could ask you the same question -- how's your view from the cheap seats? Like I said, this is a respectful discussion. If you're not interested, the door's right over there.

By the way, if you have access to another small, cheap, hub/switch, say a friend is giving one away, you can attach it to the first hub/switch and expand your network that way.

Are you running Linux or Windows? In Linux it's no problem, just configure the fourth computer as a router and then give the fifth computer an IP address on the new network. In Windows this is problematic, because Microsoft restricts routing to the more expensive server product. There is a feature called Internet Connection Sharing that lets LAN computers access the Internet through one workstation that's directly connected to something like a cable modem (most people don't use this anymore, they just connect the cable or DSL "modem" directly to their switch). But while this is a form of routing, I believe Microsoft has deliberately removed the "Sharing" feature from the normal "Local Area Connection" module in the Network Connections application so that you can't do what they consider to be more advanced routing. There might be a way to kludge something together, but at the moment my guess is that you're going to be stuck with the fifth computer being unable to see anything other than the fourth computer. There may be third party solutions out there to get around this problem in Windows. But your best bet is just to do what Dave said and buy a bigger router. They're practically giving them away these days. Or you can do what I did. Computers in my house that are outside of my office (where the DSL connection comes in) are connected via a wireless network which is secured via WPA.

As another side note, I haven't read it, but I'm told that "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire", by Richard B. Frank takes a really interesting look at these very issues. It's a recent book, I believe originally published in 1999. The comments from readers on the Amazon page are fascinating. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0141001461/qid=1123384487/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_3/103-4951205-6402255?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Come to think on it, Chapel's "Before the Bomb" covers similar ground in a different way, looking at the public debate that took place in the American public in 1945 about how best to end the war. Alas, I've not read this one either, but I've heard it's interesting. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813119871/qid=1123384912/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-4951205-6402255?v=glance&s=books

I suppose that's a fair point, Thomas, but in this case the people who are apologizing aren't the people who did it. So their apology also has no value for that reason. In fact, by "apologizing", they're actually saying something else entirely -- something that nobody who was alive on August 6th, 1945, anywhere on the entire planet, could have possibly understood, because the socio-political context for their apology did not yet exist. But this is a minor point, really. I hope I haven't derailed this thread with my personal indulgence about the apologizers. Let me get back to the main discussion at hand with your quote here: I agree, and in my opinion that was well said. You're absolutely right -- we didn't take the high road. We allowed ourselves to be dragged down. If I may, for a moment, quote one of my personal heros: Yes, we chose the low road. So often the people who had to deal with WW2 are lionized, as if they were some kind of saints. I believe that their true heroship lies in the fact that they were NOT perfect. That they DID make mistakes. And therefore the true failure on our part would be to not learn from them. So we agree on this point. These are valid questions, but one of the points I'm trying to make here is that this has nothing to do with Hiroshima. You're talking about a socio-political context that did not exist at that time, and I feel that it does those people a disservice to try to spin what happened to them for political gain.

I'm a little confused by the part of that point that you think is "good". Not to put words in your mouth or anything (just trying to clarify here), but are you basically saying that you feel states like Israel, Pakistan and India are incorrectly labelled as rogue states because they built bombs? I.E. they may actually be rogue, but it's wrong to label them rogue just because they built the bomb?

LCD is better than CRT, and DLP may be better than either. The other advantage of DLP is that you can also buy it in the flat-screen variety, looking every bit like a Plasma screen (which it is not). Don't be fooled by the perception that a reasonably-priced, reasonably-large television has to be a great big monster that dominates the entire room! And again, don't sell yourself short -- take a serious look at front projection. Where else are you going to find a 100"+ image of Plasma quality for $1500 or less? BTW, make SURE you get a 16x9 television. Whatever you do, don't buy a 4x3. Even if you're not currently interested in HDTV, the writing is on the wall here. Every single network program in prime time is now produced in HD, plus all major sporting events and many minor ones, and much (soon most) of the stuff you see on the "cable" channels as well (SciFi, TNT, Discovery, etc). And DVD movies look much better on a 16x9 TV as well (since most won't be letterboxed).

Just to kinda spur the discussion a bit, let me show you a bit of text that a far-left (but well-meaning) friend of mine sent me recently on this issue: Anyone want to point out the rather obvious logical flaw in this reasoning?

Well okay, I'll play the devil's advocate, just for the sake of discussion. Isn't it at least *possible* that nuclear weapons would have spread more quickly had NPT not existed? Also, what effect has the NPT possibly had on our *perception* about the importance of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Perhaps there has been some positive gain here? And finally, looking at the context in which we look at issues such as Iran, isn't it possible that the backdrop of NPT has aided the coalition of signatory nations in slowing the flow of equipment and technology to nations that wanted it, and also in supporting efforts made to monitor and warn about such nations?

Well actually most front projection TVs are either based on LCD or DLP technology, which is similar to LCD in several key aspects (the size of the chip, the kind of image you get, etc). If you mean rear projection, I guess CRT is still a pretty common option there, but I believe even there you're seeing more and more LCD- or DLP-based units. I have an InFocus 4805 projector, which has become kind of the "Model T" of home theater projectors. It produces an astonishingly bright and colorful image. Understand, I'm a bit of a gourmand when it comes to image and sound quality -- my sound system alone cost more than most Plasma TVs when I bought it. But we're so satisfied with the results that I've given up going to the movies entirely (my wife still goes with friends as a social thing; I won't go again until they ban and block cellphones, period). The only issue with front projection is light control -- you can't watch a movie in bright lighting. But believe it or not, this is not so much a problem with the brightness of the units as it is a problem with the brightness of the stored image. HDTV, for example, is quite viewable in bright room lighting conditions. DVD, on the other hand, is dim and uninviting in comparison (until you turn off the lights). So don't rule out front projection unless you absolutely have to. The price advantages alone make it a really great way to go. But if you do go rear projection, take a serious look at DLP. DLP is arguably better than LCD right now -- the color and contrast seems to be better, particularly for movie watching. But the LCD units are said to be improving rapidly. I can recommend several forums and web sites for you if you're interested.

Just to expand on this a bit, there was a fascinating guest editorial in today's New York Times by a 39-year-old Japanese man that was very different from the usual sort of thing you hear on this anniversary. The full story can be found here, but it's registration-required, so here are a couple of quotes I found particularly interesting: Fascinating stuff. The rest is well worth reading too. Check it out.

As we solemnly note the passing of the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, I noticed that the evil empire specter was raised again by the left, and the deceptive spin about necessity was perpetuated by the right. (An interesting case of pole reversal, by the way, since Truman was a Democrat.) While both sides have some good points here and there, I think it's sad that we continue to beat ourselves up about Hiroshima. IMO, what's done is done. Consider: - The moral decision to bomb civilians in that war was done years before, and every air power in that war committed that same atrocity. They were all "keeping up with the Joneses". Whether you blame the British, the Germans, or the Americans, what really is the point in the end? Don't we all already agree that civilian bombing was a morally reprehensible aspect of that war? - While the number of "lives saved" may not have been as high as many put it, the decision, given the context of civilian bombing that already existed in the war, is an obvious one no matter how many lives were saved. (Note I'm not saying correct, I'm saying obvious. Again, the point being that we shouldn't keep beating ourselves up over this.) - The issue of "we must remember history in order not to repeat it" is preserved regardless of whether we issue a national self-flaggelation annually. We can see the images and recognize the tragedy without broaching the subject of blame. This does have value -- nobody wants to see the event repeated. It almost doesn't matter what the causes were. What matters is that the tragedy not happen again. Whether, to you, that means "avoid war at all costs", or "war only as a last result", is really a personal decision, and has nothing to do with Hiroshima. (And can't we all agree that it's morally reprehensible to SPIN Hiroshima for political gain?) (As a side note, I think the idiot "Americans" who stand at Hiroshima holding apology banners should be forced to ride the London subway wearing inappropriate clothing with loose wires sticking out of their shirts. That way they'll get a first-hand experience with how useful and appropriate that kind of apology is.)