Someone else mentioned the Zalman flower cooler, which is what I'd recommend. Here's a link for it.
Honestly, any Zalman cooler is going to be absolutely inaudible in silent mode, and usually inaudable in normal mode once the case is closed. No, not "quieter than the competition", but genuinely silent.
Nonetheless, the flower cooler can run fanless on a CPU that isn't pushing the high end of its cooling capability.
I use two of them to cool my dual AthlonMP 1800+ processors. I do run the fans over them for peace of mind, but I could easily run them without it.
No, I understood your point quite clearly. I'm implying that it's wrong.
This Russian company is not selling *in* the US. They are selling to people in the US from their Russian presence, where they are not governed by US copyright laws. Key difference there.
What flying cars WOULD mean is that those who do happen to be competent and qualified would have more convenience....of course, that does make the market smaller and, thusly, prices higher. Rats!
They WERE at risk just by being here. Nonetheless, even if there were no risk, you don't screw with an entire region's economy just because someone important happened to be in the area when the no-fly was issued. There were reasonable exceptions made to the no-fly issue, and certainly the Bin Laden family, on whom the region's economy might hinge and who had no information to provide on Osama (with whom they don't keep contact) warranted an exception.
A tremendous amount of Saudi business revolves around the Bin Laden family. A safehouse or penitentary would be both inappropriate and damaging.
The Bin Ladens are a very public family at the heads of enormous businesses in a volatile region, and they are on good terms with the US. They are NOT anyone the US had any right to detain. To suggest that they should have been, when merely keeping them in the country could have been disastrous is ludicrous.
There was every reason for the Bin Laden family to receive special treatment.
After 9/11, the Bin Laden family would take CONSIDERABLE risk by staying in the US. Now, when they pose no threat and can provide no information and their demise could unhinge the Saudi economy and enrage the Islamic world, do you think it's a good idea to keep them in the country?
Unfortunately, I can see flicker well over 100Hz, and I've yet to meet a CRT with a referesh high enough to not give me a headache.
Strange to hear about your LCD, although I have friends who claim that even staring at a piece of paper gives them a headache, since they're used to a CRT. I can't imagine how an LCD would have blurry text, though, unless you're running it at a non-native resolution.
Really, why pay 3X the price for less resolution and brightness than a Viewsonic P95f+?
For the love of my eyes, really. I would enjoy paying significantly less for significantly more size and resolution, but my eyes just can't take the flicker. Since switching to an LCD my vision has improved significantly, and I no longer suffer from piercing headaches.
I've been switched for a year and a half now. Still waiting for my vision to go back to 20/10.
Yes, his family connections allowed him to obtain a situation that required minimal duty, and he was AWOL even from that.
a) Obtaining that position required no string pulling of any kind. b) Since when was national guard duty something to be looked down upon, even in wartime? Furthermore, by the time he even made it past training, the war was dying down. c) As established above, he wasn't AWOL.
Oh, yes, very clever indeed, since there was no bloody way he was going ANYWAY.
Furthermore, no military in their right minds would send the son of an active, highly ranked politician who also happened to have a position in the UN into a warfield.
But you obviously have a desire to believe that GWB was skipping "duty". What good will facts or logic do?
Bush was on leave to work on a political campaign in Alabama as equivilant service. Even during his "missing time", he accumulated more than enough points to stay in good standing.
Is there something in particular about the recommended book which is wrong or "American only"?
I'd be curious to know if that's the case.
Personally, I'm enamoured with the mallaebility of language, and I detest illogical or irrelevant rules. Nonetheless, if there were something that is incorrect in the book recommended above, it would be good to let us know so we can understand WHY you say so.
Just to let you know, though: English was shared outside of Britain many, many, years ago, and NO ONE, not even the British, has preserved it perfectly (in fact, it's been mangled terribly there). I also don't recall God ever bestowing the honor of "Sole Keeper of the English Tongue" upon Britain, either. Proper use of language is relative.
Since I was a child in elementary school, I have written posessives in the correct manner, only to be told I was wrong.
I thank you for both using it properly and recommending the book. I'm looking for it on amazon.com now. I'm not a grammar nazi, but there are times when a person needs to do things the right way, and I need something to back me up (and hopefully teach me a few things, too).
Context is not merely comprised of the words surrounding it, but also the history, culture, etc.
It's as if a man making bread said "I don't have any dough", meaning money, but was accused of being a liar, since he obviously had dough to make bread.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone else mentioned the Zalman flower cooler, which is what I'd recommend. Here's a link for it.
Honestly, any Zalman cooler is going to be absolutely inaudible in silent mode, and usually inaudable in normal mode once the case is closed. No, not "quieter than the competition", but genuinely silent.
Nonetheless, the flower cooler can run fanless on a CPU that isn't pushing the high end of its cooling capability.
I use two of them to cool my dual AthlonMP 1800+ processors. I do run the fans over them for peace of mind, but I could easily run them without it.
Basing all of our laws on irrelevant technicalities sounds fun!
No, I understood your point quite clearly. I'm implying that it's wrong.
This Russian company is not selling *in* the US. They are selling to people in the US from their Russian presence, where they are not governed by US copyright laws. Key difference there.
Quite irrelevant.
It's not Apple who's selling it there. It's a company who IS selling it legally in Russia.
There's no prohibition against buying American products sold in Russia.
Who's to say that that would change?
...of course, that does make the market smaller and, thusly, prices higher. Rats!
What flying cars WOULD mean is that those who do happen to be competent and qualified would have more convenience.
That clinches it.
I'm never moving to New York.
Small town life for me, I suppose!
And Iraq would fall to the next dictator in line.
It wasn't quite either, really. He was a normal human who'd been worked on by a mad scientist. ...unless I'm totally misinterpreting the game.
Too rich to arrest? They had not done anything.
They WERE at risk just by being here. Nonetheless, even if there were no risk, you don't screw with an entire region's economy just because someone important happened to be in the area when the no-fly was issued. There were reasonable exceptions made to the no-fly issue, and certainly the Bin Laden family, on whom the region's economy might hinge and who had no information to provide on Osama (with whom they don't keep contact) warranted an exception.
A tremendous amount of Saudi business revolves around the Bin Laden family. A safehouse or penitentary would be both inappropriate and damaging.
The Bin Ladens are a very public family at the heads of enormous businesses in a volatile region, and they are on good terms with the US. They are NOT anyone the US had any right to detain. To suggest that they should have been, when merely keeping them in the country could have been disastrous is ludicrous.
There was every reason for the Bin Laden family to receive special treatment.
After 9/11, the Bin Laden family would take CONSIDERABLE risk by staying in the US. Now, when they pose no threat and can provide no information and their demise could unhinge the Saudi economy and enrage the Islamic world, do you think it's a good idea to keep them in the country?
Unfortunately, I can see flicker well over 100Hz, and I've yet to meet a CRT with a referesh high enough to not give me a headache.
Strange to hear about your LCD, although I have friends who claim that even staring at a piece of paper gives them a headache, since they're used to a CRT. I can't imagine how an LCD would have blurry text, though, unless you're running it at a non-native resolution.
I count you a lucky man :)
I detect flicker well over 100Hz, but the headaches still come, even then. Not as quickly, thank God.
Really, why pay 3X the price for less resolution and brightness than a Viewsonic P95f+?
For the love of my eyes, really. I would enjoy paying significantly less for significantly more size and resolution, but my eyes just can't take the flicker. Since switching to an LCD my vision has improved significantly, and I no longer suffer from piercing headaches.
I've been switched for a year and a half now. Still waiting for my vision to go back to 20/10.
Yes, his family connections allowed him to obtain a situation that required minimal duty, and he was AWOL even from that.
a) Obtaining that position required no string pulling of any kind.
b) Since when was national guard duty something to be looked down upon, even in wartime? Furthermore, by the time he even made it past training, the war was dying down.
c) As established above, he wasn't AWOL.
Oh, yes, very clever indeed, since there was no bloody way he was going ANYWAY.
Furthermore, no military in their right minds would send the son of an active, highly ranked politician who also happened to have a position in the UN into a warfield.
But you obviously have a desire to believe that GWB was skipping "duty". What good will facts or logic do?
At a time when there was a surplus of pilots?
Makes sense to me.
Bush was on leave to work on a political campaign in Alabama as equivilant service. Even during his "missing time", he accumulated more than enough points to stay in good standing.
Here's a more exhaustive explanation that I can give.
Is there something in particular about the recommended book which is wrong or "American only"?
I'd be curious to know if that's the case.
Personally, I'm enamoured with the mallaebility of language, and I detest illogical or irrelevant rules. Nonetheless, if there were something that is incorrect in the book recommended above, it would be good to let us know so we can understand WHY you say so.
Just to let you know, though: English was shared outside of Britain many, many, years ago, and NO ONE, not even the British, has preserved it perfectly (in fact, it's been mangled terribly there). I also don't recall God ever bestowing the honor of "Sole Keeper of the English Tongue" upon Britain, either. Proper use of language is relative.
Please, sir, read the content link you posted.
To be proper, the only exception mentioned is for words ending in s with the sound "is", such as Isis or Moses.
Isis'
Moses'
Hopkins's
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Since I was a child in elementary school, I have written posessives in the correct manner, only to be told I was wrong.
I thank you for both using it properly and recommending the book. I'm looking for it on amazon.com now. I'm not a grammar nazi, but there are times when a person needs to do things the right way, and I need something to back me up (and hopefully teach me a few things, too).
Yep, once guns are criminalized, the criminals with guns will certainly be safe from those trigger-happy, law-abiding citizens!
Obviously, I asserted that it does.
Context is not merely comprised of the words surrounding it, but also the history, culture, etc.
It's as if a man making bread said "I don't have any dough", meaning money, but was accused of being a liar, since he obviously had dough to make bread.
He said in context.
I agree that Jabba not being shown makes him a powerful figure, but it was never intended to be that way.
The original scene was shot, but the SE guys couldn't make it work, and it was thusly left by the wayside.
It may be for better or for worse, but at least in this case, it isn't revisionist.