It's probably because unlike open water, bodies don't resurface in bogs. The heavy vegetable matter, debris, muds and so on hold the bodies down so they don't get noticed later on.
You stop coding, press Capslock, resume coding, halt again to press Capslock again, and you think that's more efficient than keeping one pinky finger on Shift?
I categorize what I consider "danger keys" and have my endless bouts with them. A "danger key" is any key that carries a heavy burden of control over system ("heavy danger") or performance ("light danger").
Heavy danger keys include F1, F3, Escape, Break, and Delete.
Light danger keys include Capslock, F12, Insert, Shift, and Numlock.
Some of these dangers are clearly the fault of system developers at Microsoft. F1 didn't have to be chosen as a key that will slow your system down trying to open up Windows' top-heavy and useless help system. F3 didn't have to be chosen as a key that will slow your system down trying to open up Windows' top-heavy and useless search window. So those don't have to be danger keys, but they are. Whenever I accidentally press one of them I kick myself.
But other keys like Delete are hard to blame anyone for. Delete always means "remove something". If you aren't careful of where your focus is, that "something" could be a valuable file or one character out of a password.
The Break key is a holdover from pre-threaded computing. Windows users don't need it and CLI users probably don't want to ever have to press it, and certainly don't want to press it accidentally.
The Escape key is one I really hate. It's close to a key I actually use a lot, the Tilde/Gravemark. And because its location is more or less considered remote, programmers feel safe in continuing to make it a dangerous key to press. There should never be a key that I can accidentally press that will eliminate all the work I'm trying to do.
Capslock poses a threat to performance. I often type while looking at a paper or book, I'm trained to type quickly and accurately and I don't always look at the screen. There's nothing worse than looking up and seeing reversed case for paragraphs. Luckily I use an editor that has a "reverse case" feature, but it still hurts performance to have to go back and correct the error even with an instant fix like that. It hurts performance even if you catch it when it happens, pause, and click it again to go back.
F12 hurts performance because it is almost always associated with "full-screen view". Not all apps come out of full-screen well behaved. Hell, not all apps go into full-screen well behaved. Some apps lose some functionality in full-screen. Many apps lose important things like menu bars, status bars, and scroll bars. Many apps, when in full-screen, force themselves to be "always on top" which effectively robs you of your ability to change system focus. I prefer apps that put something heavy like full-screen view behind a two-key combination like Alt+Enter. I'd prefer if all programmers adopted the Alt+Enter combo for full-screen, because sometimes full-screen is something I enjoy over-using at certain moments, but it's not something I want to accidentally happen when I'm trying to type simple math or break a sentence with an emdash, or write an underscore.
Insert hurts performance because most text editors allow a single press of Insert to immediately change whether you're in over-write or insert mode. It doesn't get used for much else in my life but I feel like Shift+Insert would be a better match for something like that. I'd prefer Insert did something more like delete does, and insert a space after the carat. I could deal with that -- at the end of my day I'd just select and delete all the built-up trailing space at the end of my document. Most apps these days don't even effectively give you any sign of what mode you're in, so it's not like you have any way of knowing until you see something going horribly wrong. Go ahead and try it right now: hit "insert" and see if your carat changes to give you a visual cue of what mode you're in. It probably doesn't.
I'm also a fan of faint, special characters at the ends of lines showing whether there's a carriage return, a linefeed or both, but we can't have everything.
Shift hurts performance because of one thing and one thing only: "sticky keys". I often hesitate before forming a sentence
The point is that the 100 foot buffer is quickly and effectively erased by the acceptable margin of error. And at airspeed, 100 feet of altitude is quickly gained or dropped.
About your 20-30 feet, how do you expect an aircraft to actually stay within those 10 feet? And by "staying over roads" you do realize that you're not only drastically increasing the likelihood of a life-ending accident, but you're also making it practically impossible to obey the rules? Roadways are very narrow and just a little bit of rudder change or a wind shear will more or less instantly put you off the road. And what kind of turns do you expect the drones to make? If you want them to bank, pull up and stabilize the turn with the rudder you're talking about taking a hell of a lot of energy out of them. They would probably have to increase propeller speed every time they turn, and now you're knocking the hell out of their fuel supply. And because you're robbing them of their ability to fly straight from point A to point B, you're making that same fuel supply take a double hit.
Planes are best left to fly in nice, straight lines and big, sweeping arcs from place to place, not zig-zagging around and trying to make 90-degree turns inside of a 30-foot radius while also maintaining within 10 feet of altitude.
Please get yourself into a flight simulator at least once before talking about something as complex as flight.
We'll Know, now. See, there are two astronauts who happen to be twins. And they have sent one astronaut into outer space and the other astronaut will stay here on Earth. As time passes on board the International Space Station, we will see whether NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly develops strange new neurochemistry the likes of which humanity has never before seen, or if he stays normal like his brother Mark. Time will tell whether this theory about the brains of people in space twisting and contorting in untold seemingly impossible ways holds water or not.
Maybe this is all an elaborate test to make sure that the paper wasn't computer-generated content (something that apparently has made it through peer review before).
I was going to wait and hold my thanks until after I actually had the operation done and my "transition" complete, but right now I feel like a complete idiot so here goes: thank you, science, for twisting my brain in a knot.
I'll go right down in the basement and haul up my holographic projector, I'm sure the wife won't mind if I borrow the kids' sleep chamber cryo unit to fire up the display. After all, how can they mind since they're all holograms? Ha, ha! Clever people we are these days.
Yes, I've been wondering when they were going to get around to building the operating system for that machine all of us ran out and bought in 1974 or whenever. I knew it was a good investment. Everybody said, "no, dude, don't buy the holographic projector, there's no O.S. for that, yet." But I just punched them in the god damned groins and ran away laughing because I'm a genius.
I'll have to dig it out of my giant mountain of 3D glasses and virtual reality headsets and body hoists, but that will give me an opportunity to sort them all by decade. Maybe they will make an operating system for the VR things or 3D glasses next, who knows, it's Microsoft -- whose motto is, "If It's Further Away From the Command Line Then It's The Future, We Will Guarantee You That Much."
Hopefully this return to common sense and keeping our high-tech up to date with actually running software signals that very soon Microsoft will publish the first operating system that runs entirely on teledildonics. Then we can call customer support and ask them why they're fucking us so bad!
I have a phone with an FM receiver active (it uses the headphone cord as an antenna) and this thread got me wondering about things like emergency radio, "scanners", etc. I ended up finding some old threads in other forums with people who found that this phone model's FM rx is in a chip that also has tx capability. But Broadcom doesn't want to share the pin outs and it looks like the threads all died. HTC EVO 4G if anybody's interested. This is along the lines of transmitting for a number of meters, of course, not for communication at a distance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most cell phones don't have the power supply to transmit FM broadcast band several miles away, let alone the antenna. And if you can't reach across several miles then what is the emergency purpose of the FM rx/tx capability? Anybody nearby is probably going to be similarly affected by said disaster. If you're worried about being separated from loved ones during a tumult, then you're probably going to want to be able to scan for them over a large area.
I'm just not sure what the argument is for having a bunch of underpowered FM rx/tx going on in the middle of a disaster.
Now, if you really want this to go through, what you have to do is find a disaster where all of the following can be clearly shown to be true:
a) numerous people died b) there was an internet or mobile outage or lack of signal c) it can be shown that the lack of internet or mobile outage of lack of signal contributed to the untimely deaths d) it can be shown that a little FM rx/tx would have saved their lives
Just one such occurrence could actually get you want you want. No company likes to be the actual literal bad guy, and these dormant rx and tx capabilities would start showing up a lot more often.
Still I don't think it will get any better than walkie-talkie across a few dozen meters.
Let's say there's a rescue team after you and you need to transmit your location details. If they're that close, you can yell. If you're under a bunch of debris, you're not transmitting very well any way. If you're thinking triangulation and mapping a bunch of blips of potential victims, well they already have GPS operating.
and i'm not suggesting that C wouldn't make a good first language, in fact I already suggested that in another comment. but it's not "an educational language"....
the fact that LOGO is not on the list the author linked to kind of makes me feel a little perturbed. like, wtf is wrong with people? there's a mention of "brick logo" as a footnote in some other language's paragraph, and "c" is mentioned as "educational" (wtf?) but not one shout out to LOGO.
did anybody else feel any sort of reaction to that? or did everybody just not even notice it?
Don't teach him a useless joke / toy language like these ones on this list. It'll build a bad habit and the kid will be one of these losers saying "I don't know how to program but I got code::blocks and here's my console emulator, shouts out to the one guy who gave me that voo doo asm to build in line and make it work real fast, everybody please stop sending me e-mails about getting root kitted, this thing totally passes a virus scan."
If you want something that has a strong visual appeal but teaches actual programming practices and has been actually used in industry, I suggest you teach LOGO. LOGO is super-super-super simple easy shit, and you can learn it yourself as you're going. Most LOGO primers and tutorials are practically on a child level any ways because the language is so simplistic. Of course, if you don't know a single thing about trigonometry or geometry you'll probably see it as a useless language.
Over any single one of the weird "robots" and "kids oriented" languages on that list you linked to, I would recommend LOGO.
I bet you can even find a "LOGO for kids" or some shit if you looked for it. For decades, LOGO has often been used as a first language for youngster so I'm kind of scratching my head how it passed you by.
I think 7 is too early. The kid should be outside playing and using his imagination with real world objects at that time.
I also recommend using C. It's simple and C-derived compilers typically support some version of it.
I learned to program in BASIC for the Atari and the Sinclair ZX-80 when I was 8 and a half. I don't recommend using numbered line BASIC or any BASIC, at all. If I could go back and somehow influence how I was taught, I would tell my parents to find something that supports parameterized function calls instead of GOSUBS. C would be best. But if you're really intent on using BASIC for some reason, if you're on the PC I recommend Microsoft's QuickBasic as it allowed you to get away from the rather intimidating edifice of Visual Studio. You'll also have to sandbox it inside of something like DOSBox to get it to run on a Windows environment so there's a plus.
If you opt to just get an old clunker instead of emulating DOS, I recommend a 486 dx4/100. The architecture is simple enough for a kid to learn into adolescence but powerful enough to show how impressively computers can complete some tasks very quickly. I also recommend an ATI "all-in-wonder" graphics card, because it features CGA, EGA and VGA so your kid can learn about legacy graphics as well as switching modes. You shouldn't use a CRT if you can help it, if the kid wants to get into the inner workings of the screen you'll have an armful of stuff to teach him about electricity safety first. So get a modern flatscreen and get a VGA/EGA plug adapter if you have to, to keep on the side for EGA projects. As long as the flat screen is unplugged he shouldn't die of electric shock touching anything inside of it.
The great thing about older machines is that a lot of the components are visible on a macro-scale. It's a lot easier to differentiate between the resistors, capacitors, and inductors in older machinery. Now a days they'll all tiny little squares with little print designating what they are. It's also easier to work on older boards in terms of soldering and other "circuit bending".
All that being said, I recall some hobbyists telling me back in the day that the Apple computers made the best projects. One guy said he had obtained a dozen Apple IIe's on the cheap and because apple computers are made to network easily, he was able to use a later Apple model to organize all the IIe's into parallel computing. An exercise like that could be fun, albeit space-consuming.
If you're going this sort of computer-engineering route involving getting to know the hardware, I recommend also teaching the kid assembly. On older machines like the ones I mentioned, and using older operating systems, this is less of a headache. By comparison, I was looking into "high level assembly" for windows systems and the skeleton just to have a window open with a button to close it again was large enough to dissuade me from going much further. ASM in DOS was far more elegant, which is why these days if you mention writing something in assembly most people think you're crazy. Even though once again many popular compilers support inline ASM.
When I was fiddling with old Sinclair or Atari machines the latest hardware was stuff like the 80286. And when I finally got an 80286 the latest hardware was the Pentium, and so on. Getting things done with older hardware gives you two special perspectives on everything: (1) getting to know how everything works because the machines and operating system aren't so enormous and bloated that it's overwhelming, and (2) having to make do with less memory and processing power forces you to learn things like optimization and paging. People use memory like it's crack today and talk all tough like their memory is infinite, but little do they know RAM is paging quite often in Windows because of programming practices like that. And those same people speak about memory management in their favorite object oriented languages like it's impossible to perform. Trust me, you would much prefer that your kid is one of those people who can do their own memory management. If you give them a shiny brand new computer to learn on, they'll have no incentive to do better than use it like crack like everybody else does.
I forgot the photo shoots FHM did of Anderson, as well.
Also, considering the stars basically stated publicly that they had some romance going on and had considered marriage, what does it matter if Mulder is getting any action with Scully? Duchovny was (maybe is) getting action with Anderson. The best thing the show could do is keep the tension high by not having the characters hook up.
Who bears the risk of junior spilling a juice cup all over the current heating furnace?
Obviously the server should be kept in the utility room (or basement) where junior doesn't usually play, and protected within some housing that doubles as a means of keeping the hot air collected so it can be ventilated at specific places throughout the home.
Applying the same explosive force required to blow up the Moon to blowing up a portion of the Earth instead would only be "more devastating" if you are purely measuring devastation potential in terms of forces of impact or explosive forces.
Don't forget that by and large, the opinion of the Moon in its relationship with life on Earth is more or less "vital". We have no idea what would happen to our weather and atmosphere, our oceans and water tables, or our life cycles if the Moon were obliterated.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably because unlike open water, bodies don't resurface in bogs. The heavy vegetable matter, debris, muds and so on hold the bodies down so they don't get noticed later on.
Really?
You stop coding, press Capslock, resume coding, halt again to press Capslock again, and you think that's more efficient than keeping one pinky finger on Shift?
I categorize what I consider "danger keys" and have my endless bouts with them. A "danger key" is any key that carries a heavy burden of control over system ("heavy danger") or performance ("light danger").
Heavy danger keys include F1, F3, Escape, Break, and Delete.
Light danger keys include Capslock, F12, Insert, Shift, and Numlock.
Some of these dangers are clearly the fault of system developers at Microsoft. F1 didn't have to be chosen as a key that will slow your system down trying to open up Windows' top-heavy and useless help system. F3 didn't have to be chosen as a key that will slow your system down trying to open up Windows' top-heavy and useless search window. So those don't have to be danger keys, but they are. Whenever I accidentally press one of them I kick myself.
But other keys like Delete are hard to blame anyone for. Delete always means "remove something". If you aren't careful of where your focus is, that "something" could be a valuable file or one character out of a password.
The Break key is a holdover from pre-threaded computing. Windows users don't need it and CLI users probably don't want to ever have to press it, and certainly don't want to press it accidentally.
The Escape key is one I really hate. It's close to a key I actually use a lot, the Tilde/Gravemark. And because its location is more or less considered remote, programmers feel safe in continuing to make it a dangerous key to press. There should never be a key that I can accidentally press that will eliminate all the work I'm trying to do.
Capslock poses a threat to performance. I often type while looking at a paper or book, I'm trained to type quickly and accurately and I don't always look at the screen. There's nothing worse than looking up and seeing reversed case for paragraphs. Luckily I use an editor that has a "reverse case" feature, but it still hurts performance to have to go back and correct the error even with an instant fix like that. It hurts performance even if you catch it when it happens, pause, and click it again to go back.
F12 hurts performance because it is almost always associated with "full-screen view". Not all apps come out of full-screen well behaved. Hell, not all apps go into full-screen well behaved. Some apps lose some functionality in full-screen. Many apps lose important things like menu bars, status bars, and scroll bars. Many apps, when in full-screen, force themselves to be "always on top" which effectively robs you of your ability to change system focus. I prefer apps that put something heavy like full-screen view behind a two-key combination like Alt+Enter. I'd prefer if all programmers adopted the Alt+Enter combo for full-screen, because sometimes full-screen is something I enjoy over-using at certain moments, but it's not something I want to accidentally happen when I'm trying to type simple math or break a sentence with an emdash, or write an underscore.
Insert hurts performance because most text editors allow a single press of Insert to immediately change whether you're in over-write or insert mode. It doesn't get used for much else in my life but I feel like Shift+Insert would be a better match for something like that. I'd prefer Insert did something more like delete does, and insert a space after the carat. I could deal with that -- at the end of my day I'd just select and delete all the built-up trailing space at the end of my document. Most apps these days don't even effectively give you any sign of what mode you're in, so it's not like you have any way of knowing until you see something going horribly wrong. Go ahead and try it right now: hit "insert" and see if your carat changes to give you a visual cue of what mode you're in. It probably doesn't.
I'm also a fan of faint, special characters at the ends of lines showing whether there's a carriage return, a linefeed or both, but we can't have everything.
Shift hurts performance because of one thing and one thing only: "sticky keys". I often hesitate before forming a sentence
Correction: if the intersection is 30 feet wide that would be a 15-foot radius for that turn.
The point is that the 100 foot buffer is quickly and effectively erased by the acceptable margin of error. And at airspeed, 100 feet of altitude is quickly gained or dropped.
About your 20-30 feet, how do you expect an aircraft to actually stay within those 10 feet? And by "staying over roads" you do realize that you're not only drastically increasing the likelihood of a life-ending accident, but you're also making it practically impossible to obey the rules? Roadways are very narrow and just a little bit of rudder change or a wind shear will more or less instantly put you off the road. And what kind of turns do you expect the drones to make? If you want them to bank, pull up and stabilize the turn with the rudder you're talking about taking a hell of a lot of energy out of them. They would probably have to increase propeller speed every time they turn, and now you're knocking the hell out of their fuel supply. And because you're robbing them of their ability to fly straight from point A to point B, you're making that same fuel supply take a double hit.
Planes are best left to fly in nice, straight lines and big, sweeping arcs from place to place, not zig-zagging around and trying to make 90-degree turns inside of a 30-foot radius while also maintaining within 10 feet of altitude.
Please get yourself into a flight simulator at least once before talking about something as complex as flight.
Kevin Mitnick's twitter has this update:
https://twitter.com/kevinmitni...
We'll Know, now. See, there are two astronauts who happen to be twins. And they have sent one astronaut into outer space and the other astronaut will stay here on Earth. As time passes on board the International Space Station, we will see whether NASA Astronaut Scott Kelly develops strange new neurochemistry the likes of which humanity has never before seen, or if he stays normal like his brother Mark. Time will tell whether this theory about the brains of people in space twisting and contorting in untold seemingly impossible ways holds water or not.
Maybe this is all an elaborate test to make sure that the paper wasn't computer-generated content (something that apparently has made it through peer review before).
I was going to wait and hold my thanks until after I actually had the operation done and my "transition" complete, but right now I feel like a complete idiot so here goes: thank you, science, for twisting my brain in a knot.
I'll go right down in the basement and haul up my holographic projector, I'm sure the wife won't mind if I borrow the kids' sleep chamber cryo unit to fire up the display. After all, how can they mind since they're all holograms? Ha, ha! Clever people we are these days.
Yes, I've been wondering when they were going to get around to building the operating system for that machine all of us ran out and bought in 1974 or whenever. I knew it was a good investment. Everybody said, "no, dude, don't buy the holographic projector, there's no O.S. for that, yet." But I just punched them in the god damned groins and ran away laughing because I'm a genius.
I'll have to dig it out of my giant mountain of 3D glasses and virtual reality headsets and body hoists, but that will give me an opportunity to sort them all by decade. Maybe they will make an operating system for the VR things or 3D glasses next, who knows, it's Microsoft -- whose motto is, "If It's Further Away From the Command Line Then It's The Future, We Will Guarantee You That Much."
Hopefully this return to common sense and keeping our high-tech up to date with actually running software signals that very soon Microsoft will publish the first operating system that runs entirely on teledildonics. Then we can call customer support and ask them why they're fucking us so bad!
it's so awesome seeing these old-timey side show barkers peddling snake oil from their wagons.
"my goodsh are the REEEAAL goodsh!"
"no god damnit he's a liar, he sells poison!"
"snake oil is the best poison money can buy!"
"see that, he's just after your money!"
"you heard it here first, folks, he's giving his away for FREE!"
"no wait a minute!"
I have a phone with an FM receiver active (it uses the headphone cord as an antenna) and this thread got me wondering about things like emergency radio, "scanners", etc. I ended up finding some old threads in other forums with people who found that this phone model's FM rx is in a chip that also has tx capability. But Broadcom doesn't want to share the pin outs and it looks like the threads all died. HTC EVO 4G if anybody's interested. This is along the lines of transmitting for a number of meters, of course, not for communication at a distance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most cell phones don't have the power supply to transmit FM broadcast band several miles away, let alone the antenna. And if you can't reach across several miles then what is the emergency purpose of the FM rx/tx capability? Anybody nearby is probably going to be similarly affected by said disaster. If you're worried about being separated from loved ones during a tumult, then you're probably going to want to be able to scan for them over a large area.
I'm just not sure what the argument is for having a bunch of underpowered FM rx/tx going on in the middle of a disaster.
Now, if you really want this to go through, what you have to do is find a disaster where all of the following can be clearly shown to be true:
a) numerous people died
b) there was an internet or mobile outage or lack of signal
c) it can be shown that the lack of internet or mobile outage of lack of signal contributed to the untimely deaths
d) it can be shown that a little FM rx/tx would have saved their lives
Just one such occurrence could actually get you want you want. No company likes to be the actual literal bad guy, and these dormant rx and tx capabilities would start showing up a lot more often.
Still I don't think it will get any better than walkie-talkie across a few dozen meters.
Let's say there's a rescue team after you and you need to transmit your location details. If they're that close, you can yell. If you're under a bunch of debris, you're not transmitting very well any way. If you're thinking triangulation and mapping a bunch of blips of potential victims, well they already have GPS operating.
I'm just not seeing the point.
Probably a mistake considering the "new" one is next to impossible to use.
Or maybe Evil Google just felt like making it hard for people to look shit up.
and i'm not suggesting that C wouldn't make a good first language, in fact I already suggested that in another comment. but it's not "an educational language". ...
whereas logo actually was conceived of as an educational programming language
the fact that LOGO is not on the list the author linked to kind of makes me feel a little perturbed. like, wtf is wrong with people? there's a mention of "brick logo" as a footnote in some other language's paragraph, and "c" is mentioned as "educational" (wtf?) but not one shout out to LOGO.
did anybody else feel any sort of reaction to that? or did everybody just not even notice it?
Also, I took a look at that list and: no.
Don't teach him a useless joke / toy language like these ones on this list. It'll build a bad habit and the kid will be one of these losers saying "I don't know how to program but I got code::blocks and here's my console emulator, shouts out to the one guy who gave me that voo doo asm to build in line and make it work real fast, everybody please stop sending me e-mails about getting root kitted, this thing totally passes a virus scan."
If you want something that has a strong visual appeal but teaches actual programming practices and has been actually used in industry, I suggest you teach LOGO. LOGO is super-super-super simple easy shit, and you can learn it yourself as you're going. Most LOGO primers and tutorials are practically on a child level any ways because the language is so simplistic. Of course, if you don't know a single thing about trigonometry or geometry you'll probably see it as a useless language.
Over any single one of the weird "robots" and "kids oriented" languages on that list you linked to, I would recommend LOGO.
I bet you can even find a "LOGO for kids" or some shit if you looked for it. For decades, LOGO has often been used as a first language for youngster so I'm kind of scratching my head how it passed you by.
I think 7 is too early. The kid should be outside playing and using his imagination with real world objects at that time.
I also recommend using C. It's simple and C-derived compilers typically support some version of it.
I learned to program in BASIC for the Atari and the Sinclair ZX-80 when I was 8 and a half. I don't recommend using numbered line BASIC or any BASIC, at all. If I could go back and somehow influence how I was taught, I would tell my parents to find something that supports parameterized function calls instead of GOSUBS. C would be best. But if you're really intent on using BASIC for some reason, if you're on the PC I recommend Microsoft's QuickBasic as it allowed you to get away from the rather intimidating edifice of Visual Studio. You'll also have to sandbox it inside of something like DOSBox to get it to run on a Windows environment so there's a plus.
If you opt to just get an old clunker instead of emulating DOS, I recommend a 486 dx4/100. The architecture is simple enough for a kid to learn into adolescence but powerful enough to show how impressively computers can complete some tasks very quickly. I also recommend an ATI "all-in-wonder" graphics card, because it features CGA, EGA and VGA so your kid can learn about legacy graphics as well as switching modes. You shouldn't use a CRT if you can help it, if the kid wants to get into the inner workings of the screen you'll have an armful of stuff to teach him about electricity safety first. So get a modern flatscreen and get a VGA/EGA plug adapter if you have to, to keep on the side for EGA projects. As long as the flat screen is unplugged he shouldn't die of electric shock touching anything inside of it.
The great thing about older machines is that a lot of the components are visible on a macro-scale. It's a lot easier to differentiate between the resistors, capacitors, and inductors in older machinery. Now a days they'll all tiny little squares with little print designating what they are. It's also easier to work on older boards in terms of soldering and other "circuit bending".
All that being said, I recall some hobbyists telling me back in the day that the Apple computers made the best projects. One guy said he had obtained a dozen Apple IIe's on the cheap and because apple computers are made to network easily, he was able to use a later Apple model to organize all the IIe's into parallel computing. An exercise like that could be fun, albeit space-consuming.
If you're going this sort of computer-engineering route involving getting to know the hardware, I recommend also teaching the kid assembly. On older machines like the ones I mentioned, and using older operating systems, this is less of a headache. By comparison, I was looking into "high level assembly" for windows systems and the skeleton just to have a window open with a button to close it again was large enough to dissuade me from going much further. ASM in DOS was far more elegant, which is why these days if you mention writing something in assembly most people think you're crazy. Even though once again many popular compilers support inline ASM.
When I was fiddling with old Sinclair or Atari machines the latest hardware was stuff like the 80286. And when I finally got an 80286 the latest hardware was the Pentium, and so on. Getting things done with older hardware gives you two special perspectives on everything: (1) getting to know how everything works because the machines and operating system aren't so enormous and bloated that it's overwhelming, and (2) having to make do with less memory and processing power forces you to learn things like optimization and paging. People use memory like it's crack today and talk all tough like their memory is infinite, but little do they know RAM is paging quite often in Windows because of programming practices like that. And those same people speak about memory management in their favorite object oriented languages like it's impossible to perform. Trust me, you would much prefer that your kid is one of those people who can do their own memory management. If you give them a shiny brand new computer to learn on, they'll have no incentive to do better than use it like crack like everybody else does.
They should keep the original melody and syncopation, but they should play it in really whacked-out "80's b-movie" style metal guitar.
I forgot the photo shoots FHM did of Anderson, as well.
Also, considering the stars basically stated publicly that they had some romance going on and had considered marriage, what does it matter if Mulder is getting any action with Scully? Duchovny was (maybe is) getting action with Anderson. The best thing the show could do is keep the tension high by not having the characters hook up.
There is a "new McGyver" project going, involving the original producer (or was it the original writer?)
http://thenextmacgyver.com/
A new Quantum Leap would be cool. There's a pretty cool John Maus song by the same title that's kind of about the same subject.
If it's wanking you're concerned with, maybe you should do a google search for the images of Anderson (and Duchovny perhaps) that Rolling Stone did.
Well then. Unless your figures are wrong (who knows?) then I guess I stand corrected.
"What are you trying to do, destroy us all?!"
-- Zac Hobbes, The Quiet Earth
Who bears the risk of junior spilling a juice cup all over the current heating furnace?
Obviously the server should be kept in the utility room (or basement) where junior doesn't usually play, and protected within some housing that doubles as a means of keeping the hot air collected so it can be ventilated at specific places throughout the home.
I think this idea sounds like a bunch of ... ... hot air.
*takes of glasses*
* YAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHH *
Applying the same explosive force required to blow up the Moon to blowing up a portion of the Earth instead would only be "more devastating" if you are purely measuring devastation potential in terms of forces of impact or explosive forces.
Don't forget that by and large, the opinion of the Moon in its relationship with life on Earth is more or less "vital". We have no idea what would happen to our weather and atmosphere, our oceans and water tables, or our life cycles if the Moon were obliterated.