My read is that their intent is a little more targeted:
That is what I understood as well.
(1) The ethics of this are more than just questionable. Service is already part of rent, as they acknowledge. It isn't "free". And the people who run the network now want to double-dip, Comcast-style, by charging the other end of the link as well.
(2) It is also probably unworkable. For a mere 35,000 students, companies like Amazon and so on would tell them to FOAD.
The shuttle was a huge boondoggle that cost $1bn (a conservative estimate) to send up astronauts in an aging, unreliable death trap that had completely blown up on 2 out of 131 missions.
That was MY point.
But there was no justification in keeping the shuttle. Cancelling it was a wise and prudent decision, probably the best decision in the space program since 1969. Just for reference, all of SpaceX's achievements to date have been done with less money than a single shuttle launch.
Cancelling it WHEN THERE WAS A REPLACEMENT AVAILABLE would have been a wise decision. Cancelling it before a replacement was just plain stupid. Now... don't get me wrong here: yes, it was old and worn out and too expensive. My point wasn't that it didn't need to be cancelled, but that a replacement should have been designed and flying before then.
You could either 1) double NASA's budget and ask it to crash-design (excuse the pun) a new manned vehicle in a couple of years. Too costly and risky. 2) Pour money into private companies to do the same. The public would never go for it, and it would also be too risky. 3) Cancel the shuttle program and divert the leftover funds to private companies to design a new manned vehicle, and in the meanwhile send up astronauts (as part of ISS obligations) with Russian rockets.
This is just laughable. First, actually, the public has been behind a larger space budget for many years. And doing it right wouldn't have been in 2 years. THAT WAS MY POINT. A replacement should have been started far earlier than that. Failure to do so was just plain poor, short-sighted planning.
Second, your point (2): it's funny, because after government and NASA failed to get your #1 in action, what they actually did was #2. And a "private" company has been doing it BETTER than NASA, and CHEAPER than NASA, and FASTER than NASA, and the public loves it.
And finally, your point (3) is not a separate option because it's actually what they were stuck with after they failed at (1) and (2) was under way.
The US isn't "relying" on anyone for space exploration. The US has plenty of its own rockets. It's merely relying on Russia for launching astronauts as an interim solution until the ISS project ends or a commercial company comes up with a manned vehicle.
You contradict yourself in the first 2 sentences.
(1) The ISS is "space exploration". Or research, at any rate, as part of our space exploration program.
(2) The U.S. does not have "plenty" of manned rockets. It is RELYING on Russian rockets -- and when it's not Russian rockets, it's Russian engines -- to re-supply and man the ISS.
(3) The whole reason we're doing that is that we DON'T have plenty of our own rockets, especially of the manned variety. Or engines for the rockets we do have. We have been buying them from Russia. We've been short of manned space capability ever since the Shuttles were shut down.
When it would cost you $1000 to buy a car, and your neighbor lets you rent his car for $10/day, and you only need a car for a few days, it would be a good idea to use his car. And if he has the tendency of being treacherous, well, then you can buy your own car if he misbehaves. And if he misbehaves really badly, then you can go and pick a fight with him. But as long as he behaves, what's the problem?
No, it's not the same. That's a BS analogy. Here is one that is closer to the actual situation:
You're cautiously friends with your neighbor. But you're both competing for the same job (not meant as a direct analogy to ISS, but space exploration in general). You both need need to get to work every day, but your "cars" are not re-usable. You used to have some cars that were re-usable to some degree. But your neighbor never did. But your re-usable cars are worn out or blew up, and you didn't have the foresight to plan ahead to make more. You *DID* have enough money to do it, but instead you CHOSE to spend your money bailing out your too-much-richer-than-you-to-fail neighbor in his mansion, giving it away to phony "clean energy" companies so their CEOs could get rich, just plain giving lots of it away to other neighbors, and lots of other outrageously stupid sh*t.
So now you're in a bind: you and your neighbor are both trying to get that executive position at work, but now you have to bum a ride from your neighbor, or buy a bunch of his one-shot cars (which he sells to you at a profit) if you want to get there every day. So... you bite the bullet and do it because through lack of adequate planning you left yourself with no alternative.
Uh-oh. Now your neighbor controls your only way to get to work, and he still wants the same position you do. And he did something really dumb, so now you're in a big argument. He gets mad... and you no longer have transportation.
Sure... you know that you can be building new and better -- and even re-usable again -- cars in about 2 years, but in the meantime, your neighbor has taken the good job, and you are playing catch-up again.
Your attitude is similar to the people who hole themselves up, buy a thousand guns, and never emerge from their house because they think everyone is out to get them.
Not even close. My attitude is one of somebody who has a neighbor who is known to be aggressively underhanded and doesn't respect rights. And who knows that under those circumstances it's not very bright to say "Here, hold my keys and my guns while I go on vacation."
they don't deserve to be punished by death, and if that happened it wouldn't be lucky.
I didn't say they "deserved punishment by death". Not even close. Go back and read again. I just implied that they might be, not that they deserved it.
Sometimes -- not always but sometimes -- you have to be a little bit stupid or at least gullible to be a victim of misinformation.
And as for lucky, it's a relative term. Niven and Pournelle said (paraphrase): when someone does kill himself off by doing something stupid, the average intelligence of the human race goes up by a fraction of a percent. In a very broad sense, you might call that lucky. After all, it's part of how we got here.
It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies. Oh no! The government knows information that I already give other government agencies!
No, it's about the government snooping into a lot of information that it DOESN'T already have (on most people, anyway) and doesn't have any legitimate reason to have.
Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been far more about snooping than protecting anybody. And now they're saying they're going to do something they were never supposed to do in the first place, and promised not to do.
If this doesn't bother you, you have your head in the sand.
But it's not a few outliers that are threatening to kill us off.
No, it's not. Which was part of my point.
On the other hand, if you are like someone I know, who has a condition that could cause permanent paralysis if he were vaccinated... where is that in the official vaccination record? Which brings up: once you start keeping government records, how far are they allowed to go?
Personally I'd rather put up with a relatively short-lived anti-vaccination fad (proponents of which, if we are lucky, might just Darwin themselves off) than an oppressive government, which causes misery for everybody and can be even harder to get rid of.
Well, an EULA is a contract. Courts have upheld that the terms of an EULA can be changed arbitrarily by the ones who issued it.
Not only is that a very gross generalization, it is untrue in almost all cases.
First off, a EULA is a license agreement for use of a product. ToS is for a service. That's not nitpicking, it is in fact an extremely important difference.
I studied EULAs rather extensively in Business Law at university. Their history is interesting and also legally very important. As it turns out, EULAs have been tried by the manufacturers and distributors for just about every kind of product in existence. There was even a manufacturer of garden shovels that tried to put a EULA on the label.
The courts ruled very consistently that if it is a retail product, EULAs are invalid. You plunked down your money, you own the product, you can use it however you like. (As long as that use is otherwise legal, of course. You aren't allowed to murder anyone with your shovel.)
This concept held in every significant case. Not only that, they ruled that a EULA was not valid even if it was clearly legible and on the outside of the package before purchase.
An exception was when you had a prior agreement, such as a licensing agreement with a manufacturer to receive products direct. But... that's not retail, and it's a prior licensing agreement!
So then along came software. And some software companies with deep pockets managed to finagle a few lower courts into ruling that software EULAs were enforceable (against pretty much all legal precedent). BUT -- and this is very important -- when those lower court rulings were appealed, the software suppliers invariably settled rather than let the cases be appealed. BECAUSE they know they'll lose. Legal precedent for well over 100 years says so.
Also, since software is a written work under copyright law, the First Sale Doctrine very clearly says EULAs are invalid on their face.
More or less the same thing happened with Gracenote as I recall.
However, that doesn't really address any of the issues that GP raised.
IANAL either, but generally speaking, a "licensing agreement" is a contract. And again generally speaking, one is not allowed to change the terms of a contract and make them "retroactive". At least not without the consent of all parties involved. If you did, it would no longer meet the very definition of "contract".
I mean, just think about it. Could your cable company say "We're going to make you a 'retroactive' customer and charge you for all past years as well"??? Of course not.
Yes, this is just misplaced paranoia. Vaccinations are legitimate public health information.
Just no. That is to say, yes they are legitimate public health information. But no, it is not paranoia.
Registrations of one kind or another are extremely prone to government abuse. And it isn't valid to say "I know my government representatives and they would never do such a thing." Because you do not know all future government administrations and whether they would do such a thing.
And if you genuinely cannot imagine how government could conceivably abuse this information, then you shouldn't be speaking up at all. Should everybody be vaccinated? What about people with other health conditions who cannot tolerate the vaccine? Pushing the issue might actually be harmful to some peoples' health in exchange for little if any real societal benefit. Beyond a certain critical mass of vaccinations, additional vaccinations are subject to diminishing returns.
I was never a great fan of LBJ, but I will leave you with probably one of the greatest things he ever said:
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
Bitcoin doesn't require banks for storage, but it certainly needs exchanges. What is your alternative if you have $100 in USD that you want to convert into Bitcoin? You could look on some random forum and mail a check to some random individual and hope they deposit the bitcoin in your wallet. Exchanges exist for the same reason that escrow services do - they're points of convenience and trust.
Unlike most "currencies", Bitcoin is a commodity, in the genuine economic sense of the term. Further, unlike most commodities even, its "value" determination was built in. Therefore speculating on Bitcoin is pretty irrational, because in a rational market, inevitably its "value" is going to settle around a relatively fixed number.
So if you were a rational person, it is likely you would seldom have good reason to converting cash to $100 worth of Bitcoin. Unless you wanted to make an anonymous online transaction. But that isn't an "investment".
Exchanges corrupted the whole idea behind Bitcoin. They removed anonymity (which is supposed to be one of the reasons Bitcoin exists in the first place), they facilitated irrational price speculation, and they charged fees for "services" that were supposed to be built into the cost of mining (which means they were double-dipping).
How can money held in trust for somebody else be lost other than by mismanagement?
My apologies. I read "at best" and somehow it got interpreted as "at most". But that is clearly not what you wrote.
All currencies are traded on exchanges today - they're a convenience.
Part of the whole purpose of Bitcoin was that it was designed to not need exchanges. The exchanges capitalized on the ignorance of people who were used to using exchanges and thinking in those terms, and didn't realize that they were paying money for something they could have gotten for "free".
A NNet is basically trying to fit a curve, the problem of "overfitting" manifests itself as two almost identical data points being separated because the curve has contorted itself to fit one data point, So yes, a video input would likely help.
They're talking about video (or at least graphic) input. You are close, but you missed the central point.
An "AI" system (which is anything but... we don't know how to make an actual AI system) doesn't reason, and is terrible at generalizing.
You see something out of the corner of your eye, and you (almost) immediately start generalizing and eliminating possibilities. Before you are even conscious of the event, your brain has already told you that it was NOT a helicopter or a fondue.
Current-tech "AI" has nothing like this capability. It is strongly algorithmic, and those algorithms simply aren't sufficient to the job. It's that simple.
An exchange doesn't need to hold money. If they ran a bank and an exchange then those operations should have been isolated.
An exchange had little reason to exist at all, except to milk stupid investors. Dealing in Bitcoin did not require exchanges. AND they added exchange fees that were totally unnecessary, and which was actually a form of double-dipping.
Banks are repositories for MONEY. Bitcoin does not need repositories. There is a very huge damned difference.
No. This whole Mt. Gox thing is solid evidence that "financial regulation" (because it does exist), when it isn't just "Good Old Boyism", is just plain incompetent.
I just realized that I didn't actually answer your question though.
The 1900 x 1200 Princeton I have had for years now is model 2418W. 24" diagonal (give or take a fraction), good contrast ratio, good brightness, good color, 5ms response time.
The Dell meets or exceeds the specs of my old Princeton. 5ms also. If you watch video, you should probably stick with these LCDs because so far the LED monitors do not have nearly the response time. You get blurry motion.
(So-called "experts" sometimes disagree but hey... when one changes pixels at 5ms and another at 12ms, critics can argue all they want but one is better than the other.)
Since the most recent Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry says that essentially all of us are mentally ill, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHGGGHHHH!!!
Slashdot Mirror
My read is that their intent is a little more targeted:
That is what I understood as well.
(1) The ethics of this are more than just questionable. Service is already part of rent, as they acknowledge. It isn't "free". And the people who run the network now want to double-dip, Comcast-style, by charging the other end of the link as well.
(2) It is also probably unworkable. For a mere 35,000 students, companies like Amazon and so on would tell them to FOAD.
The shuttle was a huge boondoggle that cost $1bn (a conservative estimate) to send up astronauts in an aging, unreliable death trap that had completely blown up on 2 out of 131 missions.
That was MY point.
But there was no justification in keeping the shuttle. Cancelling it was a wise and prudent decision, probably the best decision in the space program since 1969. Just for reference, all of SpaceX's achievements to date have been done with less money than a single shuttle launch.
Cancelling it WHEN THERE WAS A REPLACEMENT AVAILABLE would have been a wise decision. Cancelling it before a replacement was just plain stupid. Now... don't get me wrong here: yes, it was old and worn out and too expensive. My point wasn't that it didn't need to be cancelled, but that a replacement should have been designed and flying before then.
You could either 1) double NASA's budget and ask it to crash-design (excuse the pun) a new manned vehicle in a couple of years. Too costly and risky. 2) Pour money into private companies to do the same. The public would never go for it, and it would also be too risky. 3) Cancel the shuttle program and divert the leftover funds to private companies to design a new manned vehicle, and in the meanwhile send up astronauts (as part of ISS obligations) with Russian rockets.
This is just laughable. First, actually, the public has been behind a larger space budget for many years. And doing it right wouldn't have been in 2 years. THAT WAS MY POINT. A replacement should have been started far earlier than that. Failure to do so was just plain poor, short-sighted planning.
Second, your point (2): it's funny, because after government and NASA failed to get your #1 in action, what they actually did was #2. And a "private" company has been doing it BETTER than NASA, and CHEAPER than NASA, and FASTER than NASA, and the public loves it.
And finally, your point (3) is not a separate option because it's actually what they were stuck with after they failed at (1) and (2) was under way.
You're arguing against yourself, man. Give it up.
The US isn't "relying" on anyone for space exploration. The US has plenty of its own rockets. It's merely relying on Russia for launching astronauts as an interim solution until the ISS project ends or a commercial company comes up with a manned vehicle.
You contradict yourself in the first 2 sentences.
(1) The ISS is "space exploration". Or research, at any rate, as part of our space exploration program.
(2) The U.S. does not have "plenty" of manned rockets. It is RELYING on Russian rockets -- and when it's not Russian rockets, it's Russian engines -- to re-supply and man the ISS.
(3) The whole reason we're doing that is that we DON'T have plenty of our own rockets, especially of the manned variety. Or engines for the rockets we do have. We have been buying them from Russia. We've been short of manned space capability ever since the Shuttles were shut down.
When it would cost you $1000 to buy a car, and your neighbor lets you rent his car for $10/day, and you only need a car for a few days, it would be a good idea to use his car. And if he has the tendency of being treacherous, well, then you can buy your own car if he misbehaves. And if he misbehaves really badly, then you can go and pick a fight with him. But as long as he behaves, what's the problem?
No, it's not the same. That's a BS analogy. Here is one that is closer to the actual situation:
You're cautiously friends with your neighbor. But you're both competing for the same job (not meant as a direct analogy to ISS, but space exploration in general). You both need need to get to work every day, but your "cars" are not re-usable. You used to have some cars that were re-usable to some degree. But your neighbor never did. But your re-usable cars are worn out or blew up, and you didn't have the foresight to plan ahead to make more. You *DID* have enough money to do it, but instead you CHOSE to spend your money bailing out your too-much-richer-than-you-to-fail neighbor in his mansion, giving it away to phony "clean energy" companies so their CEOs could get rich, just plain giving lots of it away to other neighbors, and lots of other outrageously stupid sh*t.
So now you're in a bind: you and your neighbor are both trying to get that executive position at work, but now you have to bum a ride from your neighbor, or buy a bunch of his one-shot cars (which he sells to you at a profit) if you want to get there every day. So... you bite the bullet and do it because through lack of adequate planning you left yourself with no alternative.
Uh-oh. Now your neighbor controls your only way to get to work, and he still wants the same position you do. And he did something really dumb, so now you're in a big argument. He gets mad... and you no longer have transportation.
Sure... you know that you can be building new and better -- and even re-usable again -- cars in about 2 years, but in the meantime, your neighbor has taken the good job, and you are playing catch-up again.
Your attitude is similar to the people who hole themselves up, buy a thousand guns, and never emerge from their house because they think everyone is out to get them.
Not even close. My attitude is one of somebody who has a neighbor who is known to be aggressively underhanded and doesn't respect rights. And who knows that under those circumstances it's not very bright to say "Here, hold my keys and my guns while I go on vacation."
Victims of misinformation aren't stupid,
Some are. Some aren't.
they don't deserve to be punished by death, and if that happened it wouldn't be lucky.
I didn't say they "deserved punishment by death". Not even close. Go back and read again. I just implied that they might be, not that they deserved it.
Sometimes -- not always but sometimes -- you have to be a little bit stupid or at least gullible to be a victim of misinformation.
And as for lucky, it's a relative term. Niven and Pournelle said (paraphrase): when someone does kill himself off by doing something stupid, the average intelligence of the human race goes up by a fraction of a percent. In a very broad sense, you might call that lucky. After all, it's part of how we got here.
You know, international cooperation can be a wonderful and mutually-rewarding thing.
But relying on it, or even worse: having to rely on it, for space exploration (which has strategic value) is not just not smart but kind of insane.
It's kind of like when the military was buying chips from China:, a little bit crazy, and a lot stupid.
But that's Government for you.
It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies. Oh no! The government knows information that I already give other government agencies!
No, it's about the government snooping into a lot of information that it DOESN'T already have (on most people, anyway) and doesn't have any legitimate reason to have.
Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been far more about snooping than protecting anybody. And now they're saying they're going to do something they were never supposed to do in the first place, and promised not to do.
If this doesn't bother you, you have your head in the sand.
"Stupidity is not a crime, but it carries its own punishment." -- Robert A Heinlein
But it's not a few outliers that are threatening to kill us off.
No, it's not. Which was part of my point.
On the other hand, if you are like someone I know, who has a condition that could cause permanent paralysis if he were vaccinated... where is that in the official vaccination record? Which brings up: once you start keeping government records, how far are they allowed to go?
Personally I'd rather put up with a relatively short-lived anti-vaccination fad (proponents of which, if we are lucky, might just Darwin themselves off) than an oppressive government, which causes misery for everybody and can be even harder to get rid of.
Well, an EULA is a contract. Courts have upheld that the terms of an EULA can be changed arbitrarily by the ones who issued it.
Not only is that a very gross generalization, it is untrue in almost all cases.
First off, a EULA is a license agreement for use of a product. ToS is for a service. That's not nitpicking, it is in fact an extremely important difference.
I studied EULAs rather extensively in Business Law at university. Their history is interesting and also legally very important. As it turns out, EULAs have been tried by the manufacturers and distributors for just about every kind of product in existence. There was even a manufacturer of garden shovels that tried to put a EULA on the label.
The courts ruled very consistently that if it is a retail product, EULAs are invalid. You plunked down your money, you own the product, you can use it however you like. (As long as that use is otherwise legal, of course. You aren't allowed to murder anyone with your shovel.)
This concept held in every significant case. Not only that, they ruled that a EULA was not valid even if it was clearly legible and on the outside of the package before purchase.
An exception was when you had a prior agreement, such as a licensing agreement with a manufacturer to receive products direct. But... that's not retail, and it's a prior licensing agreement!
So then along came software. And some software companies with deep pockets managed to finagle a few lower courts into ruling that software EULAs were enforceable (against pretty much all legal precedent). BUT -- and this is very important -- when those lower court rulings were appealed, the software suppliers invariably settled rather than let the cases be appealed. BECAUSE they know they'll lose. Legal precedent for well over 100 years says so.
Also, since software is a written work under copyright law, the First Sale Doctrine very clearly says EULAs are invalid on their face.
More or less the same thing happened with Gracenote as I recall.
However, that doesn't really address any of the issues that GP raised.
IANAL either, but generally speaking, a "licensing agreement" is a contract. And again generally speaking, one is not allowed to change the terms of a contract and make them "retroactive". At least not without the consent of all parties involved. If you did, it would no longer meet the very definition of "contract".
I mean, just think about it. Could your cable company say "We're going to make you a 'retroactive' customer and charge you for all past years as well"??? Of course not.
Yes, this is just misplaced paranoia. Vaccinations are legitimate public health information.
Just no. That is to say, yes they are legitimate public health information. But no, it is not paranoia.
Registrations of one kind or another are extremely prone to government abuse. And it isn't valid to say "I know my government representatives and they would never do such a thing." Because you do not know all future government administrations and whether they would do such a thing.
And if you genuinely cannot imagine how government could conceivably abuse this information, then you shouldn't be speaking up at all. Should everybody be vaccinated? What about people with other health conditions who cannot tolerate the vaccine? Pushing the issue might actually be harmful to some peoples' health in exchange for little if any real societal benefit. Beyond a certain critical mass of vaccinations, additional vaccinations are subject to diminishing returns.
I was never a great fan of LBJ, but I will leave you with probably one of the greatest things he ever said:
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
Bitcoin doesn't require banks for storage, but it certainly needs exchanges. What is your alternative if you have $100 in USD that you want to convert into Bitcoin? You could look on some random forum and mail a check to some random individual and hope they deposit the bitcoin in your wallet. Exchanges exist for the same reason that escrow services do - they're points of convenience and trust.
Unlike most "currencies", Bitcoin is a commodity, in the genuine economic sense of the term. Further, unlike most commodities even, its "value" determination was built in. Therefore speculating on Bitcoin is pretty irrational, because in a rational market, inevitably its "value" is going to settle around a relatively fixed number.
So if you were a rational person, it is likely you would seldom have good reason to converting cash to $100 worth of Bitcoin. Unless you wanted to make an anonymous online transaction. But that isn't an "investment".
Exchanges corrupted the whole idea behind Bitcoin. They removed anonymity (which is supposed to be one of the reasons Bitcoin exists in the first place), they facilitated irrational price speculation, and they charged fees for "services" that were supposed to be built into the cost of mining (which means they were double-dipping).
How can money held in trust for somebody else be lost other than by mismanagement?
My apologies. I read "at best" and somehow it got interpreted as "at most". But that is clearly not what you wrote.
All currencies are traded on exchanges today - they're a convenience.
Part of the whole purpose of Bitcoin was that it was designed to not need exchanges. The exchanges capitalized on the ignorance of people who were used to using exchanges and thinking in those terms, and didn't realize that they were paying money for something they could have gotten for "free".
A NNet is basically trying to fit a curve, the problem of "overfitting" manifests itself as two almost identical data points being separated because the curve has contorted itself to fit one data point, So yes, a video input would likely help.
They're talking about video (or at least graphic) input. You are close, but you missed the central point.
An "AI" system (which is anything but... we don't know how to make an actual AI system) doesn't reason, and is terrible at generalizing.
You see something out of the corner of your eye, and you (almost) immediately start generalizing and eliminating possibilities. Before you are even conscious of the event, your brain has already told you that it was NOT a helicopter or a fondue.
Current-tech "AI" has nothing like this capability. It is strongly algorithmic, and those algorithms simply aren't sufficient to the job. It's that simple.
It had to be gross mismanagement at best.
No, it didn't.
An exchange doesn't need to hold money. If they ran a bank and an exchange then those operations should have been isolated.
An exchange had little reason to exist at all, except to milk stupid investors. Dealing in Bitcoin did not require exchanges. AND they added exchange fees that were totally unnecessary, and which was actually a form of double-dipping.
Banks are repositories for MONEY. Bitcoin does not need repositories. There is a very huge damned difference.
And yet, despite your choice to remain ignorant, you nevertheless had to express your skepticism...
Despite what I clearly labeled as doubt based on a guess, nevertheless there was a logical basis for that guess.
Which is still a lot better than random asshole ad-hominem. Did you really think this was somehow adding to the discussion?
"...Over five years..." Goes to show how our expectations of monitor longevity have been downgraded! :( Plenty of CRTs out there 15 years old or more.
Yes. Would you like one? I have one I've been trying to get rid of for a year. Just pay shipping, it's yours.
No. This whole Mt. Gox thing is solid evidence that "financial regulation" (because it does exist), when it isn't just "Good Old Boyism", is just plain incompetent.
I just realized that I didn't actually answer your question though.
The 1900 x 1200 Princeton I have had for years now is model 2418W. 24" diagonal (give or take a fraction), good contrast ratio, good brightness, good color, 5ms response time.
The Dell meets or exceeds the specs of my old Princeton. 5ms also. If you watch video, you should probably stick with these LCDs because so far the LED monitors do not have nearly the response time. You get blurry motion.
(So-called "experts" sometimes disagree but hey... when one changes pixels at 5ms and another at 12ms, critics can argue all they want but one is better than the other.)
I'm willing to believe you, but unless you cut the meat yourself, you can't really be positive about that statement.
True. I am not the person who cut the meat. But since I knew the person who did, I think the chances are pretty fair.
Not all "USians" live in NYC, or buy all their meat at the supermarket.
Jane, you would have known nothing had your mouth not been firmly clinched around my cock.
Come on, dude, you know that's BS. It was teeth, not lips. And they weren't even mine.
But I'm happy to learn you're finally out of the hospital. Care for another?
Yes, I know they say nobody lives forever.
As long as the curve approaches infinity, I'll be happy to be well down the long end of it.
"Inside job," I said...
(Actually I said I thought it "probably" was.)
Human cells are pretty large, on average, and microbial cells are much smaller.
Thanks. I really wasn't interested enough to look it up, but this is very informative.
Since the most recent Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry says that essentially all of us are mentally ill, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHGGGHHHH!!!