David: Live From XP on a Mac

---

Got my wireless driver working, so here I am, live from Xp on my Mac.

Maybe it's just my clumsiness from not having used Windows in over 3 months, but it seems to me that it takes twice as many clicks or menu navs to do the same thing here as it would in OSX.

Heh, one of my neighbors has a network called "dale88fan". Did they hit the 8 twice by accident? Hmmmm.

Well, I see an unsecured NETGEAR on the list, so I'm going to pop over there and see what I can see. Later!

David: So, I Lied

---

This post is not from Windows XP.

However, I have just finished successfully installing it on my iMac. I need to track down drivers and stuff (wireless networks don't work well when the computer doesn't recognize the wireless card), but I will save that for another time.

I didn't do much with Windows but look at it and shudder.

I'm not sure it's going to get much use, but it's there now if I ever need it.

David: Adventures in Dual Booting

---

I'm in the process of finishing up the backup process on my machine. After this DVD finishes burning, it'll be time for my adventures in dual booting.

Sadly, there isn't a driver solution for the video card, so I'll be running on unaccelerated graphics (no Half-Life 2 yet, I'm afraid), but I'm tired of waiting and want to try this.

Why?

For the geek factor alone. Just so I can say, "Hey, my machine boots both Win XP and Mac OS."

In WoW news, I've found that people who play the Horde have a deep fascination with Chuck Norris. Sure the whole Chuck Norris fact thing was funny when it was new, but these days it's so old hat to hear somebody spout one of these lines and pretend it's fresh. Especially when they claim ownership.

Fuckin' Chuck Norris.

Remember the swift boat vets? Watch this!

My next entry will be from Windows XP...

David: The Answer is 28

---

If you're not a Lost fanatic, the contents of this post will be extremely boring (unless you're in to number sequences).

You've been warned.

During some off time at work today I became determined to find some sort of sequence or pattern in the damned "Lost numbers", those being 4 8 15 16 23 42.

While there isn't a method for determining the next number in the sequence, each number in the current sequence has a unique relationship to the previous numbers. Just to be clear, this is true for any number sequence.

Here is how I see them as being derived:
The first is the base.
The second number is twice the first.
The third is twice the second minus 1.
The fourth is twice the second.
The fifth is the sum of the second and third.
The sixth is the sum of the first, third, and fifth.

Using the above rules, the following sequences come from bases 1 - 6:
1 2 3 4 5 9 - 24
2 4 7 8 11 20 - 52
3 6 11 12 17 31 - 80
4 8 15 16 23 42 - 108
5 10 19 20 29 53 - 136
6 12 23 24 35 64 -164

The difference between every total derived from this sequence ends up being 28. Though, it should be noted that all sequences derived in this fashion will end up with a common difference in sums.

For instance:

1 9 36 84 100 - 230
2 18 72 168 200 - 460
3 27 108 252 300 - 690
4 36 144 336 400 - 920

Where the initial sequence was just a random set of numbers I wrote down.

Also notice the pattern that forms in each column.

As far as I can tell, all this means nothing. The only questions this raises for me are, "Is 28 relevant?" and "Why "9" and not "6" in the base 1 sequence?"

David: Thoughts?

---

An Unholy Union

I'll let you all know if I'll be attempting this hack when it goes public.