> At this point, it wouldn't matter even if it was rigged.
Not sure what you mean by that. It could turn out that many important people were in on it. People who may run for President in the future, or a Congressman, preventing reelection.
Strangely enough, just yesterday I changed my sig to a rant about a group of reasons why Novell pisses me off. Couple that with this article, and the gist is that Novell doesn't give a shit about their customers, so they certainly would be the... wait... Microsoft? Hmmm... maybe they ARE the MS of "Linux."
There is no "anonymity" in airlines unless you want to find out why your luggage was confiscated or if items are missing from it. Then it's a matter of national security. They have your name when you buy a ticket, regardless how you paid. Using neither cash nor credit card changes your status as a "known person." All a credit card tells you is that you may be the victim of fraud. The only way paying with cash should be considered more suspect is if the bills were counterfeit. Anything else is bullshit and should not be accepted. If I were a terrorist on an airline, I'd get a brand new credit card to buy my ticket with. Might as well spend the rest of your cash on planning, etc. and let the CC company take the tiny monetary hit from not paying the card off.
When your diet is dictated by your religion, there's no reason for two religions to follow the same diets. Even if they are from the same area. They are remarkably similar, though. And it's not just regional, there are plenty of foods available in the area that pose no health risk, yet Jews are not allowed to eat them anyway. It's rather arbitrary at times... outside of religious context, of course: they consider their reasons "good").
> Also notice how all the products [...] labelled Lenovo and not IBM.
Funny that on THE EXACT PAGE I LINKED TO, there is a picture of a laptop WITH THE IBM LOGO ON IT!!!! It's the most prominent thing on the page! Did you even bother looking into what you were saying? The Lenovo company itself calls their PCs IBMs. I know, they call me every damned day.
They're certainly "in the game" more than almost any other PC maker. Keep in mind that "any other PC maker" includes companies that have been out of business for years, not just current major players.
> Even after seeing enough of his crap to automatically call it "keyboard drooling", you still read it
Well, there is such a thing as hopeful naiveté. He could have read it in the hopes that it might not be a waste of time. Also, if you're going to seriously insult someone's writing, you should be sure you're still correct.
> You could disregard the input completely, and output, say, zero, every time
And since the answer is always the same (100% reliability!) you can forego the output altogether. I think you have stumbled onto a new paradigm in high-speed, high-reliability computing!
I can't seem to find any pictures that aren't taken from the same angle as every other one (besides above). Sure the one side you can see looks pretty flat, but the opposite side appears to be embedded in another hill.
Also, the whole thing appears to be titled to the left (from the common POV). I haven't seen any topological images that show four similar sides. I think it's just a mix of Point of View and imagination. Of course, I can't exactly take a quick trip to Bosnia to see for myself, so I have to rely on the extremely limited number of photos online.
Not being able to read the slavic languages doesn't help either. I've seen pictures of two distinctly different hills, both of which seem to be passed off as the same place. However, one of the two appears to be shorter, with a flat/rounded top (the first image from your link). The commonly-seen pictures show a pointed tip. It's all quite confusing.
> How probable is the formation of pointy hill from geological perspective?
Considering it was probably formed by very large glaciers, quite probable. However, if it has four equal sides, it is considerably less probable (read: not very).
> I'm not an expert [...], but that looks like a biased phrasing
Yeah, it's pretty obvious you're no expert. How in the hell can you consider this a biased question: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
There is little question doubt that the Bush administration performed illegal wiretaps, but the question still left open the possibility of no illegal activity. If you think the question is biased "to the left" you are, apparently, too far to the right to understand what a lack of bias looks like, and if you think it's biased "to the right," the end result would have been well below %50.
Maybe it IS right-weighted and the actual result should have been closer to 75%... I can hope.
> I also know that in my city there were zero bars and restraunts (excluding the fast food type) that banned smoking.
If you know the policy of every place where you live, you either don't live in a city like you said, or you are a fucking liar. Considering your previous untruths, I'll assume the second.
> smoke from cigerettes is poisonous and will cause health problems
Will? WILL Talk about lies. If I smoke near someone and they get a whiff of my smoke, THEY WILL NOT GET HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. Yours is complete bullshit, a totally alarmist statement, and just begging to be correctly called a troll.
> apparently you're too stupid to follow it.
Stupid, eh? I'm not the one that thinks he has the right to remain unoffended. I'm not the one that thinks the United States has government-sponsored healthcare (hint: you don't pay for ANYONE'S cancer treatment). But you wouldn't know that, not wanting to look into anything that might harm your sense of self-importance and self-righteousness.
Fucking trolls... If you don't know anything about law or government, don't argue it. It just shows your own ignorance
> how about i punch you in the face everytime I see you?
Then I would do well to avoid you as much as possible. Which is what YOU should do, but you feel you should be able to walk anywhere on this Earth and smell nothing but flowers and puppies. If you continued to chase me and punch me, I'd get a restraining order. I am not about to follow you around blowing smoke in your face and I highly doubt anyone has ever done that to you, yet you act as if we are seeking you out.
If your "logic" made any real sense, you could immediately shut down all coal-burning plants, take all gas-powered cars off the road, planes from the air, boats from the waters, all oil wells could be shut down, and fire banned in general. You cannot, yet smokers are demonized by assholes like you who claim that standing next to a smoker will give you cancer (not sure how you figured that one). It is bullshit.
But you feel that you have the right to dictate the actions and allowances of someone who DOES have that capital? That they put up? That they risked losing by making a business that employs people? And despite the fact that they are the only ones taking the risk in a business, you think you can tell them what legal activities can and cannot take place there?
> The fact that this council did so illegally doesn't have any bearing except in that city.
Umm.... and the myriad of other cities where such bans have been enforced illegally.
> > I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places. > Try living someplace taht doesn't have an active ban. FWIW, my city recently passed such a ban.
Are you fucking retarded? I'm willing to take a flamebait karma hit on this one because you obviously have no intention of making a rational argument. I was a smoker starting about 13 years ago, the city ban was put in place less than 4 years ago, just before I moved away. I stated that the town I live in now has no ban. I DO LIVE SOMEPLACE(sic) taht(sic) doesn't have an active ban.
> the reality is that until the ban you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being exposed to smoke
Then you have a serious problem with phantom smells. Are you one of those obnoxious assholes who starts mock-coughing every time they can see a cigarette in their field of vision? If someone is smoking 30 ft from you (and you aren't directly down-wind) you WILL NOT smell the smoke. If you do, it's either a freak of physics that the smoke managed to stay in an air pocket that long, or you are imagining it to prop up your bullshit offense. There simply are not enough smokers in the world to make sure you smell smoke EVERYWHERE, like you said. Unless, of course, you work in a cigarette shop... and live there... and never leave.
> 'd like to live my life, and that includes being able to go out to eat, drive to work, the bank, go to the movies, etc
No one has taken that away from you. I'd like to do those things without being subjected to some fucking hick's body odor, but just imagine the laughing stock you would be if you suggested banning B.O.
> I shouldn't have to give all that up become some selfish idiot thinks they have a right to smoke anywhere they want.
But I should have to give up smoking because you are a selfish idiot who wrongly believes they have the right to live their life completely unoffended? Get off you fucking high horse and stop trying to force everyone to live like you.
> It could be used to break the interconnect barrier by having optical interconnects, the interconnect barrier threatens Moore's law unless a faster way of connecting chips is found.
Actually, it's probably saying that Moore's law will no longer be applicable unless they can manage to break that barrier, which this could help do.
> Take the subway, bus, or other mass transit, you're stuck
Where do you live that smoking is allowed on MASS TRANSIT??? I had no idea such places existed in the U.S. any more (maybe you're not in the U.S.?). I thought that was considered a fire hazard. I apologize: apparently, I was wrong. There should be no smoking in tightly-packed, enclosed areas like that, IMO.
> its being able to choose a smoke-free life
Not to be an ass (too late), but you could always go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. You can work for Motorola, they fired all their smokers. Making a life choice and sticking to it does not mean you have the ability to keep your lifestyle without giving anything up (convenience). For instance, is there only one entrance to your place of work? Can you use another door? I know little about where you work, so this may be a completely useless suggestion, but you could suggest a company policy to prohibit smoking from withing X feet of an entrance. A few feet doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it works. My work has such a policy (20ft), although being a hospital people may be more apt to follow the policy. And there's always gonna be jerks who will ignore it.
> I don't want to smoke, smell like smoke, or have anything to do with smoking.
I don't want to have anything to do with pollution, war, and many other things, yet I am forced to support them in a more direct way than you are forced to be around smoke, via taxes and the need to buy things to survive. (Sure, I can grow my own food, but that's an inconvenience, perhaps on a similar level as avoiding smoke, IMO)
> Now I live in a state that has a statewide ban on smoking in public areas in buildings... [..] the smokers I know don't mind going into the smoke room
Isn't that contradictory? You just said it was banned, but if a place has a "smoke room" it has NOT been banned.
> There are some things that some people can't be swayed on.
I said nothing about "some things." Find me a person who can not be corrupted in any way, on any topic -- which is what I really said, not what you wanted to reply to -- and I'll shake his hand and apologize for not believing in his existence nor the divinity of his son...
Slashdot Mirror
> At this point, it wouldn't matter even if it was rigged.
Not sure what you mean by that. It could turn out that many important people were in on it. People who may run for President in the future, or a Congressman, preventing reelection.
Strangely enough, just yesterday I changed my sig to a rant about a group of reasons why Novell pisses me off. Couple that with this article, and the gist is that Novell doesn't give a shit about their customers, so they certainly would be the... wait... Microsoft? Hmmm... maybe they ARE the MS of "Linux."
> Tracking the flow of money is a very important part of tracking criminals.
It's far more useful for tracking innocents, which is why I object to it.
There is no "anonymity" in airlines unless you want to find out why your luggage was confiscated or if items are missing from it. Then it's a matter of national security. They have your name when you buy a ticket, regardless how you paid. Using neither cash nor credit card changes your status as a "known person." All a credit card tells you is that you may be the victim of fraud. The only way paying with cash should be considered more suspect is if the bills were counterfeit. Anything else is bullshit and should not be accepted. If I were a terrorist on an airline, I'd get a brand new credit card to buy my ticket with. Might as well spend the rest of your cash on planning, etc. and let the CC company take the tiny monetary hit from not paying the card off.
When your diet is dictated by your religion, there's no reason for two religions to follow the same diets. Even if they are from the same area. They are remarkably similar, though. And it's not just regional, there are plenty of foods available in the area that pose no health risk, yet Jews are not allowed to eat them anyway. It's rather arbitrary at times... outside of religious context, of course: they consider their reasons "good").
> Also notice how all the products [...] labelled Lenovo and not IBM.
Funny that on THE EXACT PAGE I LINKED TO, there is a picture of a laptop WITH THE IBM LOGO ON IT!!!! It's the most prominent thing on the page! Did you even bother looking into what you were saying? The Lenovo company itself calls their PCs IBMs. I know, they call me every damned day.
http://www.lenovo.com/us/en/
> Now IBM's not even in the PC game
They're certainly "in the game" more than almost any other PC maker. Keep in mind that "any other PC maker" includes companies that have been out of business for years, not just current major players.
I represent the modem too! Word to your Sportster, yo! All your Hayes' are belong to us!
> Even after seeing enough of his crap to automatically call it "keyboard drooling", you still read it
Well, there is such a thing as hopeful naiveté. He could have read it in the hopes that it might not be a waste of time. Also, if you're going to seriously insult someone's writing, you should be sure you're still correct.
No, there's a 1.5% margin of error. The other .5% are hermaphrodites.
> You could disregard the input completely, and output, say, zero, every time
And since the answer is always the same (100% reliability!) you can forego the output altogether. I think you have stumbled onto a new paradigm in high-speed, high-reliability computing!
> doesn't precision just mean making the same error everytime [...] it's hard to combine it with speed
Naw, as long as the errors execute quickly...
> > they're completely ignoring the possibility that aliens constructed the pyramid
> in that movie it was the Predators that built the pyramids
Are the Predators not aliens?
I can't seem to find any pictures that aren't taken from the same angle as every other one (besides above). Sure the one side you can see looks pretty flat, but the opposite side appears to be embedded in another hill.
Also, the whole thing appears to be titled to the left (from the common POV). I haven't seen any topological images that show four similar sides. I think it's just a mix of Point of View and imagination. Of course, I can't exactly take a quick trip to Bosnia to see for myself, so I have to rely on the extremely limited number of photos online.
Not being able to read the slavic languages doesn't help either. I've seen pictures of two distinctly different hills, both of which seem to be passed off as the same place. However, one of the two appears to be shorter, with a flat/rounded top (the first image from your link). The commonly-seen pictures show a pointed tip. It's all quite confusing.
> How probable is the formation of pointy hill from geological perspective?
Considering it was probably formed by very large glaciers, quite probable. However, if it has four equal sides, it is considerably less probable (read: not very).
This "Pyramid" theory was announced more than a week ago, and has since been debunked. Way to go.
> What costs does Sony have at that point? I can't think of anything.
Promotional stuff... advertising. Not to mention bribes.
> I'm not an expert [...], but that looks like a biased phrasing
Yeah, it's pretty obvious you're no expert. How in the hell can you consider this a biased question:
"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
There is little question doubt that the Bush administration performed illegal wiretaps, but the question still left open the possibility of no illegal activity. If you think the question is biased "to the left" you are, apparently, too far to the right to understand what a lack of bias looks like, and if you think it's biased "to the right," the end result would have been well below %50.
Maybe it IS right-weighted and the actual result should have been closer to 75%... I can hope.
> You've just doubled the testing required for new X360 software. That is a big deal.
Why doubled? Wouldn't they only need to test the parts of their software that could be affected by the chips' significant operational differences?
> I also know that in my city there were zero bars and restraunts (excluding the fast food type) that banned smoking.
If you know the policy of every place where you live, you either don't live in a city like you said, or you are a fucking liar. Considering your previous untruths, I'll assume the second.
> smoke from cigerettes is poisonous and will cause health problems
Will? WILL Talk about lies. If I smoke near someone and they get a whiff of my smoke, THEY WILL NOT GET HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. Yours is complete bullshit, a totally alarmist statement, and just begging to be correctly called a troll.
> apparently you're too stupid to follow it.
Stupid, eh? I'm not the one that thinks he has the right to remain unoffended. I'm not the one that thinks the United States has government-sponsored healthcare (hint: you don't pay for ANYONE'S cancer treatment). But you wouldn't know that, not wanting to look into anything that might harm your sense of self-importance and self-righteousness.
Fucking trolls... If you don't know anything about law or government, don't argue it. It just shows your own ignorance
> how about i punch you in the face everytime I see you?
Then I would do well to avoid you as much as possible. Which is what YOU should do, but you feel you should be able to walk anywhere on this Earth and smell nothing but flowers and puppies. If you continued to chase me and punch me, I'd get a restraining order. I am not about to follow you around blowing smoke in your face and I highly doubt anyone has ever done that to you, yet you act as if we are seeking you out.
If your "logic" made any real sense, you could immediately shut down all coal-burning plants, take all gas-powered cars off the road, planes from the air, boats from the waters, all oil wells could be shut down, and fire banned in general. You cannot, yet smokers are demonized by assholes like you who claim that standing next to a smoker will give you cancer (not sure how you figured that one). It is bullshit.
> I don't have any capital
But you feel that you have the right to dictate the actions and allowances of someone who DOES have that capital? That they put up? That they risked losing by making a business that employs people? And despite the fact that they are the only ones taking the risk in a business, you think you can tell them what legal activities can and cannot take place there?
> The fact that this council did so illegally doesn't have any bearing except in that city.
Umm.... and the myriad of other cities where such bans have been enforced illegally.
> > I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
> Try living someplace taht doesn't have an active ban. FWIW, my city recently passed such a ban.
Are you fucking retarded? I'm willing to take a flamebait karma hit on this one because you obviously have no intention of making a rational argument. I was a smoker starting about 13 years ago, the city ban was put in place less than 4 years ago, just before I moved away. I stated that the town I live in now has no ban. I DO LIVE SOMEPLACE(sic) taht(sic) doesn't have an active ban.
> the reality is that until the ban you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being exposed to smoke
Then you have a serious problem with phantom smells. Are you one of those obnoxious assholes who starts mock-coughing every time they can see a cigarette in their field of vision? If someone is smoking 30 ft from you (and you aren't directly down-wind) you WILL NOT smell the smoke. If you do, it's either a freak of physics that the smoke managed to stay in an air pocket that long, or you are imagining it to prop up your bullshit offense. There simply are not enough smokers in the world to make sure you smell smoke EVERYWHERE, like you said. Unless, of course, you work in a cigarette shop... and live there... and never leave.
> 'd like to live my life, and that includes being able to go out to eat, drive to work, the bank, go to the movies, etc
No one has taken that away from you. I'd like to do those things without being subjected to some fucking hick's body odor, but just imagine the laughing stock you would be if you suggested banning B.O.
> I shouldn't have to give all that up become some selfish idiot thinks they have a right to smoke anywhere they want.
But I should have to give up smoking because you are a selfish idiot who wrongly believes they have the right to live their life completely unoffended? Get off you fucking high horse and stop trying to force everyone to live like you.
I'm done with you and your inconsistent logic.
> It could be used to break the interconnect barrier by having optical interconnects, the interconnect barrier threatens Moore's law unless a faster way of connecting chips is found.
Actually, it's probably saying that Moore's law will no longer be applicable unless they can manage to break that barrier, which this could help do.
> Take the subway, bus, or other mass transit, you're stuck
Where do you live that smoking is allowed on MASS TRANSIT??? I had no idea such places existed in the U.S. any more (maybe you're not in the U.S.?). I thought that was considered a fire hazard. I apologize: apparently, I was wrong. There should be no smoking in tightly-packed, enclosed areas like that, IMO.
> its being able to choose a smoke-free life
Not to be an ass (too late), but you could always go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. You can work for Motorola, they fired all their smokers. Making a life choice and sticking to it does not mean you have the ability to keep your lifestyle without giving anything up (convenience). For instance, is there only one entrance to your place of work? Can you use another door? I know little about where you work, so this may be a completely useless suggestion, but you could suggest a company policy to prohibit smoking from withing X feet of an entrance. A few feet doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it works. My work has such a policy (20ft), although being a hospital people may be more apt to follow the policy. And there's always gonna be jerks who will ignore it.
> I don't want to smoke, smell like smoke, or have anything to do with smoking.
I don't want to have anything to do with pollution, war, and many other things, yet I am forced to support them in a more direct way than you are forced to be around smoke, via taxes and the need to buy things to survive. (Sure, I can grow my own food, but that's an inconvenience, perhaps on a similar level as avoiding smoke, IMO)
> Now I live in a state that has a statewide ban on smoking in public areas in buildings... [..] the smokers I know don't mind going into the smoke room
Isn't that contradictory? You just said it was banned, but if a place has a "smoke room" it has NOT been banned.
> There are some things that some people can't be swayed on.
I said nothing about "some things." Find me a person who can not be corrupted in any way, on any topic -- which is what I really said, not what you wanted to reply to -- and I'll shake his hand and apologize for not believing in his existence nor the divinity of his son...