Slashdot Mirror

The force of gravity pulling the moon together causes pressure at the core (See Pascal's law) This pressure (thousands if not millions times Earth's atmospheric pressure), gets converted into heat, which then causes convection and volcanoes. Some heat is also generated by the moon rotating within Saturn's gravitational field.

This may help.

According to that formula on the site, RD+V)F+S)/A:

Comedic value is determined by multiplying the recognizability of the main character (R) by their delusions of grandeur (D). This is added to the verbal wit of the script (V), and the total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury (F).

The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters (S) is added, and finally the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A). Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score."

Therefore, The Dick Van Dyke Show must be the best sitcom ever (with real actors). Unsuccessful schemes: check. Differetial in social status: (barely) check. Verbal wit: check. Delusions of grandeur: check. Recognizability of Dick: check. Excessive falling over: check! Q.E.D. The only other contender, I think, would be I Love Lucy.

According to that formula on the site, RD+V)F+S)/A:

Comedic value is determined by multiplying the recognizability of the main character (R) by their delusions of grandeur (D). This is added to the verbal wit of the script (V), and the total is multiplied by the amount someone falls over or suffers a physical injury (F).

The difference in social status between the highest- and lowest-ranking characters (S) is added, and finally the total is divided by the success of any scheme or stratagem in the show (A). Each term in the formula is assigned a value up to a maximum of 10 to give an overall scientific score."

Therefore, The Dick Van Dyke Show must be the best sitcom ever (with real actors). Unsuccessful schemes: check. Differetial in social status: (barely) check. Verbal wit: check. Delusions of grandeur: check. Recognizability of Dick: check. Excessive falling over: check! Q.E.D. The only other contender, I think, would be I Love Lucy.

> The BBC never deliberately trashed the archives in 1974: they thought there were copies at another site.

i think he's talking about the fact that they used to re-use the (expensive at the time) tapes for other, "more important" things like football matches and horse races. the first series of Quatermass went the same way.

ah, would appear that you're both right:
http://www.answers.com/topic/dr-who#wp-Missing_epi sodes

it's a shame either way.

Political correctness isn't about rudeness, it's about not "offending" a certain group, where being offended does not correlate with rudeness but with imagined slights. An example from answers.com shows how insane this is, as the PC term hearing impaired is active in conveying the impairment, while deaf is just neutral. It's not just people being stupid, it completely muddles the languages, making communication more difficult than it already is.
See here for more.

Err...what good would THAT do? It's important to remember that the Drake Equation is, at best, speculative science fiction (see HERE for a more critical evaluation of it). The equation itself is little more than a statement of the obvious. The only way to get an informative result from it is to plug in meaningful values. Drake and company came up with some speculative numbers, but there are simply way too many unsubstantiated "ifs" there to draw any trustworthy results. The fact that the values of the three "f" terms must necessarily be fabricated from whole cloth is alone enough to render the equation non-science.

We all come into this world with differing levels of gifts. It is what makes us so interesting.

How very ... PC. (I do agree that people are not born equal, but as for it making us so interesting, well, not so much. What generally makes us interesting is what happens after birth ...)

And yet political correctness also suggests that we are all born equal. Quite the oxymoron ...

A person without the genetic gift of increased intelligence may become more intelligent than the gifted person if they apply themselves and believe they can do it.

Generally, science has shown that the effects of `applying themselves' and `believing they can do it' on intelligence is relatively small, especially as one becomes an adult.

The American Heritage Dictionary uses this definition for intelligence: "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge."

I suspected that you might try to define it. However, merely going to http://www.answers.com/intelligence comes up with several other definitions --

The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and acquiring and applying knowledge:

The general mental ability involved in calculating, reasoning, perceiving relationships and analogies, learning quickly, storing and retrieving information, using language fluently, classifying, generalizing, and adjusting to new situations.

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal.

The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

Each one of these is subtly different. Yes, they're all related, but they're all different too. And how do you measure these things, in a way that gives an accurate result for everybody? It's not like you can have people just concentrate and measure it that way, like the aliens used the `brain boost machine' in Forbidden Planet.

Of course, you're right: the brain isn't a muscle, it is technically an organ. But, people often refer to it as a muscle because, like a muscle, they can develop it.

`Musclehead' is generally considered to be an insult. Discuss.

And just because people like to say `the brain is a muscle, it needs to be developed', that doesn't mean it develops like a muscle. I'm of a pretty average build, a bit round. I'm also pretty smart, though not a genius. I'm pretty sure that if I started seriously hitting the gym and running and such, in a six months I'd be `buff', with probably 2-3 times the strength and endurance that I have now. But if I started working on brain-puzzles non-stop, reading books, etc. for the same six months, I still wouldn't be a genius. In fact, I don't think my IQ would go up by any signifigant degree, though I might have a lot more knowledge and be a bit better at doing puzzles.

There is ample evidence of this. In fact, the evidence that we can develop our mental abilities is one of the founding reasons for our educational system.

You're mixing your terms. Mental abilities and IQ are not the same, though a person with a high IQ may have more mental abilities. Being able to list the dates that things happened, or being able to fix a car is a mental ability, but not a sign of high intelligence. Being able to find the pattern in a sequence of images is often a sign of high intelligence (and a mental ability(, though that ability will probably improve with practice. (But does that practice make you more intelligent? That has not been really determined.)

Also, it seems to have been shown that any benefits to intelligence caused by studying and thinking and such are much larger if done as a child. Once you become an adult, your IQ is generally fixed (though of course you can make it low

I never thought the day would come when someone posts a joke and the respone, on /. of all places, references copyright restrictions. How ironic, if not a sad sign of how times have changed.

It sounds like Lexmark thought they could pull a Nintendo

> I'm trying to remember his name... he was involved in the american war of independance...

The guy you're searching for is Pierre de Beaumarchais.

> Back then the publishers were opposed to copyrights. Now they twisted it and corrupted the system so that they once again get to screw people over.

"twisted" is an understatement. In Beaumarchais' own country, copyright now runs for the author's entire life, plus seventy years. I'm still trying to grasp why the hell some guy that's been dead for decades would need a financial incentive to produce new works...

• Nintendo had a patent on their authentication chip. This afforded them significantly more protection than the DMCA clauses that Lexmark is attempting to use.
  
• Nintendo licensed the chip to third parties, thus negating a need for reverse engineering. Lexmark is attempting to erect an artificial barrier against competitors, which a court is unlikely to find very sporting. (That's why you *always* look to be in a market with a set of *natural* barriers. Then no one can claim that you're being anti-competitive.)
  
• The DMCA does not completely rule out reverse engineering. It just reigns it in to a razor thin line. The specific clauses actually work against Lexmark due to the issue that no other method has been made available for interoperability.

(f) Reverse Engineering. -

* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
* (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

* (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

* (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

Scouse

Hehehe, sorry, Scouse is the name they give to the people that live in Liverpool (the place where the Beatles born.

But no, it seems you are not. You must be a big Beatles fan then =o)

Cheers.

Ha, you still won't give up will you. It seems like you're on some rampage of righteousness! You have judged me and are prepared to hold your opinion, regardless of the situation.

"...I guess you're off the hook' - I was never on the hook! This is your personal assessment of my situation, and I don't care for it, it's irrelevant to this discussion and personally insulting.

"dismissing her point of view as ignorant" - yes, I was, it was ignorant, just like many of your comments. Ignorance doesn't immediately mean BAD! If I am ignorant of something it just means I don't know about it. I'll be the first to admit that I am ignorant of many many things and am extremely grateful when any individual points this out for me as it allows me to improve my knowlege in that area. Read this definition: http://www.answers.com/ignorant

"None of this was ever intended as a personal attack. If you really believe that it was, I think you need to seriously recalibrate." - Well mate, it was a personal attack . This is a real problem in world culture at the moment, people believe that by saying "...no offence..." then that makes what you're about to say OK. Well, it doesn't. It's still offensive, regardless of INTENT. I know the law doesn't make this distinction as intent is very important when assessing most legal issues. But, from a social perspective this is a very important issue. To further support this I could roll off many examples of legally acceptable practices that are socially abhorred.

Additionally, if someone doesn't understand how to argue without making personal attacks then they will *never* be able to hold a reasoned and unbiased discussion with anyone, ever.

Now, please read over our exchange of discussion and note that I have not _once_ made any opinionated assessement of you, or your abilities, while you have made many comments about me and my personal life. This comes across as a rather transparant attempt at gaining the moral high-ground, a very agressive tactic that is quite insulting.

So to draw my rant to a close (you can gain some smug satisfaction from knowing that I am abandoning Slashdot forever as of today, you are the straw that broke my camel - although I'll log in to read your response to this post) you kind of voiced your own uncertainty with a nice catchall disclaimer. "...any value judgement like that is relative..." Why didn't you think: "hmmm, I think what that guy said about his girlfriend is disrespectful, perhaps, nah, hmmm, what am I doing? I'm making a value judgement on someone elses personal life, they could be from another culture, another country, they could practise a totally different belief system to me... I'll make my judgement and keep it to myself, or even better, I won't make a judgement, I'll be tolerant of their own beliefs, because hey, I'd like them to respect mine." So here's my value judgement, I believe that everyone in the world needs to be a lot more understanding and tolerant of each other, in every way possible, from world trade negotiations to posting insignificant crap on Slashdot, it all makes a difference.

PS: He he, like the way I took the moral high-ground at the end there. I hope you don't feel too shitty because I didn't mean for it to be offensive...

Further, 'character' is pretty specific to alphabetic writing. I wonder if a Chinese idiograph or Egyptian hieroglyph count as a 'character'?

You're incorrect. "Character" is generic, "letter" is not. As seen in "Chinese characters". The term "glyph" is equally generic.

Chinese characters aren't strictly pictograms or even ideograms. Some characters combinations of other characters where some parts of the compound character are used hint at the proper pronouciation.

Also not all words, are represented by a single glyph. The word "da4", which means "big", can be combined with "xiao3", which means "small", to create "da4xiao3" which means "size". (The numbers after the syllables indicate the tone.) Some characters must be used in combination with others, because the individual character has no intrinsic meaning.

Further complicating matters is when Western words are transliterated into Chinese. (Japanese and Korean words sometimes have Chinese characters already associated with them. It appears to me that in the few cases I know the words also have a common ancestor, but I'm not a Asian linguist.) While the meanings of the individual characters or even the combination of characters carry little weight, care must still be used lest you transliterate "George Bush" to "Robot Monkey Carburetor", or even worse, "Butt Fucker". For instance, the fast food chain "Subway" is transliterated to something that sounds like "sa ba wei", and means "10,000 Tastes" or something like that, instead of "di4xia4tie3" which means "underground train".

Explaining why creating nonsense words that bear a striking resembelence to English words in order to prevent saying something stupid in a non-English langauge is left as an exercise to the reader. Please note, that the "Mexican Chevy Nova" story is a myth. It assumes Spanish speakers don't have enough command over their native langauge to distinguish between "nova" and "no va", unlike English speakers ability to distribuish between "notable" and "no table". Futhermore the myth hinges on the listener to have ignorance of the fact that the Mexican government sells gasoline under the brand name "Nova".

Thus concludes your linguistic lesson.

Whatever they used in the Abyss, it was most likely not water, as the sequence with the mouse breathing was not CGI. And water in your lungs is bad!

But, there do exist some breathing fluids, that among other things are being used on prematurely born babies, before their lungs are fully developed. AFAIK, using them for diving is still science fiction. You can read more about it here

It's called liquid breathing...
And although is nothing like what is described in the article, it is pretty cool technology.
Research started on animals (mice) in the 1960's, and has progressed to the point where it's being used to assist premature babies with respiratory problems.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fluid-breathing

capitalism, economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

For coolness points, try Phillip Glass' Einstein On The Beach. It's only five hours long, but it just seems right.

http://www.answers.com/topic/einstein-on-the-beach

How many hundreds of millions of units have you shipped of your operating system?

A flop indeed.

you're obviously not aware of the AIM alliance from the early 90's. IBM might own the patents but Apple has licensing rights because of the AIM alliance that they can leverage in more ways than you or I think, I'm sure.

Hey now, don't forget about old MegaNet (even though despite pimping the modem in every flyer they put out, Sega never did bring it to the US.)

Not complicated at all, I don't think. It very much sounds like a stepper motor.

I like your use of "We", followed by the implication that you can use wire to bail out a sinking boat.

Baling wire is used to make bales of hay, bailing wire indicates that you are a Yankee spy, sent to infiltrate the mighty Southron states.

These offer long life at the expense of low power. They are good for pacemakers and things in inaccessible environments where the wattage requirements aren't high but the replacement cost is huge. They are not suitable for consumer electronics stuff.
A radioactive source with sufficient power to run a laptop would require significant cooling, especially when the laptop was shut off. For an idea of what it would be like, think of the RTG devices that we attach to space probes in the outer solar system. (Or that are scattered across the former Soviet Union.) Those things usually generate several hundred watts.

It means "Many; also, no particular amount of."

In other words, there are countless criteria which they can use to deny admission. Totally private universities may, in fact, have the right to discriminate based on ANY criteria. I haven't done the research, but Boy Scouts of America has been successful in disciminating against homosexual applicants.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

From TFA: "Back when Mario Mania was reaching its peak in 1990 and 1991..."

I'm not sure if I'd say 1990 was the peak of Mario's popularity. I clearly remember chomping down on a big, mouth-lacerating bowl of Mario Cereal (why is it that so many childrens' cereals are scientifically designed to cut the crap out of the roof of your mouth?)- and I didn't even own an NES. Mario had enough clout that, without even playing the games, I was willing to rush home from school and watch the Super Mario Bros. Super Show while eating a bowl of cereal that turned my mouth into a bleeding mess. That, to me, is the peak of "Mario Mania".

Why/How can Firefox, which runs happily on W2K and others, offer better security, while IE cannot do the same on an OS developed by MS itself?

According to Microsoft, IE is integrated into the operating system itself -- it is no longer a standalone application. Ostensibly they did this to allow greater desktop-to-Internet integration, but given the inherent insecurity of ActiveX, the tendency for the forces of evil to use it maliciously, and the inability of users to lock it down, it's not exactly a hot selling point these days.

Firefox, on the other hand, stands to benefit immensely from all this. It offers a free, lightweight, standalone browser whose programming environment makes it easy for developers to extend its functionality without coopting its security (so far). It does this without any hooks into the operating system, and offers a variety of ways to combat malware, popups and generally obnoxious behavior (Flash movies, rampant advertising, etc).

Microsoft might claim that they won't be releasing any further security patches or functional upgrades to Windows 2000 or IE6. But as of September 2004, ~49% of Windows users still use Windows 2000 or lower (98, 95, NT, etc). Trying to scare users into upgrading their OS, so they can take advantage of a marginally improved, questionably more secure Windows, doesn't seem to be working anymore. And I'm by no means a Linux zealot -- I'm an ASP/SQL programmer, have been using Windows since v3.1, and am a huge fan of Microsoft's development tools / languages.

Besides landing my most recent job, discovering Firefox was the best tech-related thing that's come along in recent memory. It's inspired me to start learning more about client-side development again, after seeing what's possible with AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And XML), standards-compliant CSS and XHTML. Once Dean Edwards' CSS-based IE7 stylesheet matures a bit more, developers will be able to instantly upgrade the set of standards-compliant available to IE 5/6 users. At that point, who will need IE 7? The days of developing wonderful new HTML and CSS tags that are only supported by one browser are in decline...... Firefox's market share has risen to just under 10% in the past year, while Microsoft's market share has dropped to under 90% for the first time since Netscape was still relevant. IE7 won't become ubiquitous for a long, long time, especially if Microsoft doesn't plan on making it available to users of its older operating systems. Why would developers of any web applications besides IE-only Intranets/Extranets create products that utilized features only available to a very small set of the installed user base?

So whatever, Microsoft. Dig your own grave, if you insist upon doing so. I'll continue to use your server-side tools, provided something better and easier-to-use doesn't come along, but at this point, you've lost me as a client-side developer of IE. Not that you should care, of course..... but if you can lose a devoted developer like me, I have to wonder how many others you've push away. It appears it's not all about "Developers, Developers, Developers!", as Steve Ballmer & Co. would have us believe.

well, your mind collected information somehow, but it was not by perception.

Yes, it was. Perception. Take note of 3a and 3b.

The point is that it is deduced by the mind.

Perception includes such mechanisms by definition.

Took the words right out of my pie hole. While the DC power cube transformer is not the most delicate piece of hardware, the amperage across a typical 44.32 MHz transmitter is substantial.
I was also worried that the velocity modulated (periodically bunched) voltage applied to the klyston would result in damping of the skywave

nope

preventative

adjective

1. Intended to prevent: deterrent, preclusive, preventive. See allow/prevent.
2. Defending against disease: preventive, prophylactic, protective. See allow/prevent.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;?tname=prevent ative

In other news, here is how to make your own Sun!

Just gather 2 × 10^30 kg of hydrogen together in one spot and watch the magic as energy is released. This process is called nuclear fission. The article can be found here.

I guess you mean take the bus around town.

http://www.answers.com/topic/general-motors-street car-conspiracy

I really meant greyhound from point to point. Local public transis stinks in the US due to sprawl. We have a local bus system, but nobody uses it. NYC and Boston are about the only real public transit systems that sorta work in the US that I know of.

Last time I checked, bus and train did not require ID to travel, but that was pre 9/11. You could move anonymously across the US without ID using cash.

I once took a 4 hour greyhound. You meed some scary people. People that want to be rather anonymous, or people with limited $ that have to travel, or crazy people that don't fly. Take your pick, everyone there was scary.

The N th person would mostly turn out to be an inncoent non-white person travelling to the west on businees. I am apalled at the racisism that is practised on the western airports (UK and USA) on the name of security.

Its basic statistics, surely you understand this. True there may be white hijackers (Although personally I haven't heard of this). But seeing that everyone likes their references...

http://www.answers.com/topic/aircraft-hijacking

Other significant hijackings include:

* 1958 First Cuba to U.S. hijacking
* 1960 The first US to Cuba hijacking
* 1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.
* 1970: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid is foiled by armed gaurds aboard.
* 1971: D. B. Cooper hijacks Northwest Orient Airlines flight 305 and obtains $200,000 ransom for the release of the plane's passengers. Cooper proceeds to parachute from the rear of the Boeing 727 and is never found.
* 1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.
* 1977: A Palestinian hijack of a Lufthansa airliner Landshut during its flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt is ended in Mogadishu when German commandos storm the plane. Three hijackers are killed and 86 hostages are freed. The hand of German Red Army Faction is suspected. The pilot is killed.
* 1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.
* 1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.
* 1983: Tbilisi hijacking incident
* 1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces.
* 1985: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.
* 1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.
* 1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.
* 1990: Hijackers seize a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashes as it tried to land in Canton killing 128 people.
* 1994: Four Islamic GIA terrorists seize Air France Flight 8969 plane in Algiers. It is flown to Marseilles where French commandos (GIGN) storm the plane, killing the hijackers. 170 passengers survive.
* 1996: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third inci

What I say is "Slashdot responses are all computer-generated, except mine". Time after time a common thread appears in consecutive posts. In this case, the post before also talks about re-evolution.

I think a random subject generator isn't quite working properly.

From now on, I'm going to note these occurrences with a subject of "quincunx", a word that sounds outstandingly profane, but actually isn't.

Actually, vigilantism isn't illegal. For instance, the Minuteman Project, or more basically a neighborhood watch program, is vigilantism.
It's only illegal if you attempt to enforce the law yourself, bypassing the police.

That's the very definition of vigilante

Remember, vigilante comes from vigilance.

Comes from, originally. Not synonymous with.

That the Republic had been aware of...after the Sith Wars of 1000 years prior, all Sith had supposedly been eradicated, but they managed to survive autonomously maintaining the balance in the force and going with a one master, one apprentice arrangement...they had followers, too, trained in the dark arts, but not allowed to pursue mastery...

This is all off of the top of my head, though...there are histories and timelines out there (a pretty good one is available here (answers.com is faster than wikipedia, so I link there...). Best of luck to you, good sir.

Me too....

For those not in the know, Xen plus Intel's Vanderpool (or AMD's Pacifica) will allow you to get VMWare-like capabilities at near native speeds included into every Linux kernel.

http://www.answers.com/topic/xen
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel /2005-02/msg00651.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1055

Don't skip the sociopolitical commentary of Dune. Let's see... valuable substance, used for damn near everything, only found in a desert place, guarded by fierce people with a suspiciously Arabic language... Nope, no idea what he was talking about there.

I'd have more faith in a computer company (Apple comes to mind first), successfully paring down their knowledge into something workable than I would a company like Sony kludging together a bunch of different pieces well.

Two words: Apple Pippin.

Apple actually did have a version of Mac OS 7 running in x86. They called it Project Star Trek.

Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pregadous
Google suggests:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pregidous&spell=1
He probably meant(obviously):
http://www.google.com/search?q=prejudice&btnG=Sear ch
http://www.answers.com/prejudice&r=67

3 a/b) "A guarantee"

Your insightful argument is very intresting with all the sources you cited to prove your point...

However let me try if I can rebut your claim anyway. You say that Kevin Rose is a "tool". The defention of tool as an insult is used when describing someone who is being manipulated without their knowledge - implying they are naïve and ignorant. Now I don't think that Kevin Rose matches any of those points. He knows what he is doing and is neither being exploited or manipulated. In fact he is rather taking the bull by the horns at it were and attempting to start a Online Television company producing shows reminiscent of the old TechTV days.

Now that I gave you the smart ass answer I will go alittle more into what I think you really mean by calling him a tool, which is he is a "poser" and does not possess the true elite computer hacker skills that you think are important.

Now don't get me wrong I am not Kevin Rose fanboy although I am defending him here. I do think he does a pretty good job with production value and quality of the shows he is on, either it be thebroken or the old Screen Savers. Does that mean that anyone who wants to have a tech show has to be one of the most elite computer users on the planet before they get your approval? I hope not because I have been following around online telvision shows for a while and I got to say that the ones with the most elite people as the stars suck. And the reason that is because the most elite people for the most part do not know how to be a good television host. Their camera angles are all off, the lighting always sucks and I get better sound listening to AM radio. I don't want an "elite computer hacker" running the shows I watch. I want those people in the background comming up with the content and handing it off to people like Kevin Rose who can actually present the information in a worth while format.

Mediocre attempt at a joke. The original poster was actually correct. Look at the first two definitions. You're shooting for the third.

Don't use big words if you don't know what they mean.

The numbers Vary from site to site.
I have seen the number vary between 6.5-10%.
This is also intresting reading!
In Deutschland we look to have a far larger percent of our energy needs met by win by 2010

--uwe--

Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent. In law, it is usually the broadest term for a crime against property. It is a general term that encompasses offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, fraud (theft by deception), and sometimes criminal conversion. Legally, theft is generally considered to be synonymous with larceny.

In the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised taking or use of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.