I haven't found any games that my GeForce 8800 GTS r1 (320MB) can't run perfectly fine on high settings. Let me know if one turns up.
Uhhh.... Crysis?
On a sidenote, I've got the 640MB version of that card... It was free...
What about Woodrow Wilson Smith?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
... Or Bill "Woodie" Smith, or Ernest Gibbons, or "Happy" Daze, or Dr. Lafayette (Lafe) Hubert, or Mr. Justice Lenox, or Aaron Sheffield, or Ted Bronson, or Lazarus Long....
I remember when I was maybe 11 or 12 flying down to florida to visit my paternal grandfather. I went to the airport with at least two pocket knives and a multi-tool ON MY PERSON. Looking back, the funniest part is that it took 2-3 passes through the metal detector for me to find all of them...
Security didn't even make a comment to me, or make moves to confiscate any of it. This was the summer of 2000 or 2001 (I don't remember which).
I was just being sarcastic (Implying that they could just jump out the pod-bay door or something), but in the case that you are correct, that it had ejection seats for pilot/co-pilot, would that have improved their odds of survival, or would it just have postponed their deaths until they went splat (or alternatively, sometime after they landed safely)?
The thing you overlook in declaring the shuttle "safer" than previous launch/re-entry vehicles is this:
When we built the previous generations of spacecraft we didn't know WTF we were doing -- Especially with the earliest attempts (made by the US) after the launch of Sputnik; We were trying to get something up fast, not something up safely.
The shuttle has been a compromise since its very inception. It was designed to be able to intercept/capture (as well as launch) satalites. Because of this, it doesn't really go up high enough to be [extremely] useful. Additionally, when we look at the first major shuttle disaster (challenger?), it was due to thermal failure of critical parts (Read: not designed to launch when it was cold out), which lead to nice fireworks.
But then again, my grandfather worked on [pieces of] most of the early space programs (he worked for G.E.), so my opinion is clearly biased...
I'm within an hour of Philadelphia here, and I've been wearing t-sirts and sandals all winter. This doesn't mean its warm, just that I choose to wear such clothing. If I were in AZ, I would likely be comfortable (to uncomfortably warm) in what I normally wear.
Yes, but they would probably see more money from me if they didn't try to gouge me in every way possible.
FFS, it costs almost (sometimes more than) 15 USD for ticket + beverage -- DVD's usually cost around that, and I can watch them as many times as I like.
I agree on public libraries needing longer hours. The hours of my local library are as follows:
Monday - Thursday 9:30 AM - 9:00 PM
Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM
Saturday 9:30 AM- 5:00 PM
Sunday 1:00 - 5:00 PM
These hours absolutely suck for me. I don't generally go to the library at any time other than late evenings/weekends. I can fully understand not having all departments open at all times -- All I really need is to be able to check out books. That takes maybe (tops) five library staff members (paid or otherwise). I can fully understand not having sufficent funds to operate all departments at 100% at all hours, but this doesn't mean you can't operate some departments without operating other departments....
Honestly, the library would be a much more practical place to study if they were open until 23:00 on Friday-Sunday. They don't need to staff the A/V department, they don't need to staff the reference department, they don't need to staff their computer center (they have public 802.11G) -- they just need to have a guard and a few people to handle checkouts.
What the other poster was saying is that with junk snail mail the major financial burden is on the sender, whereas with electronic mail the major financial burden is on the reciever.
With snail mail, the sender has to:
(X) Pay for it to be printed (X) Pay for it to be mailed
With snail mail all you have to do is:
(X) Dispose of it
With electronic mail, the sender has to:
(X) Have an internet connection (X) Have some software send the same stuff to large numbers of addresses for little to no cost
With electronic mail you have to chose some of the following:
( ) Spend hours going through your email to sort the chaff from the wheat (spam from the *.meat ?) ( ) Choose an address that wouldn't be on word/name lists (like something from an obscure book) ( ) Pay for professional spam filtering services (like Postini) ( ) Never give your address out to anyone (works best with option two)
Basically what I (and some others) are saying here is that the key difference between junk snail mail, and junk electronic mail is who pays. With junk snail mail, the sender has to pay to make it, and pay to get it to you, whereas it costs you little (read: almost nothing) to just throw it away. With junk electronic mail however, the sender only has to pay for a computer and an internet connection -- once (s)he has those, (s)he can send a virtually unlimited stream of junk. Because of this, you end up with an inbox crowded with messages that you then have to sort through so that you don't miss important messages.
Simply put, on the one hand the sender foots the bill, while on the other the recipient does.
The last time I saw a friend of my fathers (who is part of ODU's experimental nuclear physics group), I asked him about the viability of fusion power. He said something to the effect of "Fusion power is the technology of the future -- and always will be." When I asked him why he said this, he repiled with something to the effect of "When I was in school in the 70's it was 50 years off, and now its 50 years off."
By the way, that same professor has a book coming out this April on estimation........
Everything I've seen about geo-thermal on a mass scale says that it is a pipe dream--we expend more energy doing it than we get back.
The only reason that people are so "NIMBY" about nuclear power is the constant negative propaganda coming from some/most environmentalist/disarmament organizations/movements.
That's 1,095,000 kW/h for $30,000. That's $0.0274 per kW/h. Less than three cents.
All this, and NO TOXIC WASTE.
Not quite. You fail to take several things into account:
1: A wind turbine needs space--air free of foliage or other debris that could damage it. 2: A wind turbine needs to be situated on real estate that actually gets wind. 3: You need to spend time (and by extension money) maintaining the conditions of my first point. 4: The environmental cost of manufacturing & erecting the turbine. 5: The environmental cost of disposing of the turbine at the end of its lifespan. 6: The environmental cost on wildlife due to lost habitat.
How much then, does he pay for these so-called "carbon offsets?"
His keynote presentation on global warming has received standing ovations, and he has presented it at least 1,000 times
Quick mental arithmetic brings me to the minimum total of:
100,000,000 USD that Mr. Gore has recieved by traveling to speak. One hundred million dollars. I ask again: How much of this money has he spent to buy "carbon credits/offsets?"
(quotes are from wikipedia article linked to by direct parent.)
If you are saying that you think solar & wind power are cleaner and cheaper than nuclear, then I would have to disagree.
With photovoltiac cells, and wind turbines there are three environmental costs to consider:
1) Cost of construction. 2) Cost of operation (this includes space required). 3) Cost of disposal.
Nuclear only has two of these issues (1 & 3), and while they are slightly more burdensome (long half-life) they require less work;
To dispose of nuclear waste, you need only contain it until it decays--this is where most of the problems are. Currently our solutions for storing nuclear waste will not last long enough, and will as a consequence have to be replaced eventually.
The important piece of information that your first link doesn't include is the generation cost per kilowatt hour of solar/wind/nuclear power. This is important information.
If this concencus that you refer to is the UN group on climate change (I'm not sure of the name) then it is totally devoid of merit as far as I am concerned. They make a politically motivated report and then tack on the names of every educated person to have been associated with the group, whether or not those individual persons agree with the so-called "concencus." There have been at least two or three prominant scientists who have had to fight tooth, claw and nail to get their names taken off the list--with varying degrees of success. If you are referring to some other, indepandant study, then I'm sorry for ranting.
Yes, our data dating from the beginning of the 20th century up until now shows that average global temperatures are on the rise. Apart from minor changes (on a relative scale) to coastal communities like the one discussed in TFA, the net effect of increasing global temperatures is positive.
The "try asking them how they feel" arguement isn't going to get much sympathy from me (for any but the directly effected), because the net impact on society is positive.
Slashdot Mirror
Who likes the little, little duckies in the pond?
I do, I do, I do a chick-a-quack quack.
... Or Bill "Woodie" Smith, or Ernest Gibbons, or "Happy" Daze, or Dr. Lafayette (Lafe) Hubert, or Mr. Justice Lenox, or Aaron Sheffield, or Ted Bronson, or Lazarus Long....
Watch who you call "fags" when you wear all that make-up yourself, Gene Simmons......
You guys are really piling it on thick....
I remember when I was maybe 11 or 12 flying down to florida to visit my paternal grandfather. I went to the airport with at least two pocket knives and a multi-tool ON MY PERSON. Looking back, the funniest part is that it took 2-3 passes through the metal detector for me to find all of them...
Security didn't even make a comment to me, or make moves to confiscate any of it. This was the summer of 2000 or 2001 (I don't remember which).
I was just being sarcastic (Implying that they could just jump out the pod-bay door or something), but in the case that you are correct, that it had ejection seats for pilot/co-pilot, would that have improved their odds of survival, or would it just have postponed their deaths until they went splat (or alternatively, sometime after they landed safely)?
The thing you overlook in declaring the shuttle "safer" than previous launch/re-entry vehicles is this:
When we built the previous generations of spacecraft we didn't know WTF we were doing -- Especially with the earliest attempts (made by the US) after the launch of Sputnik; We were trying to get something up fast, not something up safely.
The shuttle has been a compromise since its very inception. It was designed to be able to intercept/capture (as well as launch) satalites. Because of this, it doesn't really go up high enough to be [extremely] useful. Additionally, when we look at the first major shuttle disaster (challenger?), it was due to thermal failure of critical parts (Read: not designed to launch when it was cold out), which lead to nice fireworks.
But then again, my grandfather worked on [pieces of] most of the early space programs (he worked for G.E.), so my opinion is clearly biased...
Yes it did -- It just didn't improve the user's odds of survival.
I'm within an hour of Philadelphia here, and I've been wearing t-sirts and sandals all winter. This doesn't mean its warm, just that I choose to wear such clothing. If I were in AZ, I would likely be comfortable (to uncomfortably warm) in what I normally wear.
Man must seek to adapt [to] environment.
Yes, but they would probably see more money from me if they didn't try to gouge me in every way possible.
FFS, it costs almost (sometimes more than) 15 USD for ticket + beverage -- DVD's usually cost around that, and I can watch them as many times as I like.
Then I guess they'll be in business indefinately?
Honestly, the library would be a much more practical place to study if they were open until 23:00 on Friday-Sunday. They don't need to staff the A/V department, they don't need to staff the reference department, they don't need to staff their computer center (they have public 802.11G) -- they just need to have a guard and a few people to handle checkouts.
Just my $0.02 USD.
What the other poster was saying is that with junk snail mail the major financial burden is on the sender, whereas with electronic mail the major financial burden is on the reciever.
With snail mail, the sender has to:
(X) Pay for it to be printed
(X) Pay for it to be mailed
With snail mail all you have to do is:
(X) Dispose of it
With electronic mail, the sender has to:
(X) Have an internet connection
(X) Have some software send the same stuff to large numbers of addresses for little to no cost
With electronic mail you have to chose some of the following:
( ) Spend hours going through your email to sort the chaff from the wheat (spam from the *.meat ?)
( ) Choose an address that wouldn't be on word/name lists (like something from an obscure book)
( ) Pay for professional spam filtering services (like Postini)
( ) Never give your address out to anyone (works best with option two)
Basically what I (and some others) are saying here is that the key difference between junk snail mail, and junk electronic mail is who pays. With junk snail mail, the sender has to pay to make it, and pay to get it to you, whereas it costs you little (read: almost nothing) to just throw it away. With junk electronic mail however, the sender only has to pay for a computer and an internet connection -- once (s)he has those, (s)he can send a virtually unlimited stream of junk. Because of this, you end up with an inbox crowded with messages that you then have to sort through so that you don't miss important messages.
Simply put, on the one hand the sender foots the bill, while on the other the recipient does.
Does this help you?
( ) Yes
( ) No
Serves him, right?
Zombie apocalypse....
No, I think what he was saying was something along the lines of: "It has a nice feature list, but it is a bit pricey given what it offers."
The last time I saw a friend of my fathers (who is part of ODU's experimental nuclear physics group), I asked him about the viability of fusion power. He said something to the effect of "Fusion power is the technology of the future -- and always will be." When I asked him why he said this, he repiled with something to the effect of "When I was in school in the 70's it was 50 years off, and now its 50 years off."
By the way, that same professor has a book coming out this April on estimation........
Everything I've seen about geo-thermal on a mass scale says that it is a pipe dream--we expend more energy doing it than we get back.
The only reason that people are so "NIMBY" about nuclear power is the constant negative propaganda coming from some/most environmentalist/disarmament organizations/movements.
1: A wind turbine needs space--air free of foliage or other debris that could damage it.
2: A wind turbine needs to be situated on real estate that actually gets wind.
3: You need to spend time (and by extension money) maintaining the conditions of my first point.
4: The environmental cost of manufacturing & erecting the turbine.
5: The environmental cost of disposing of the turbine at the end of its lifespan.
6: The environmental cost on wildlife due to lost habitat.
I'm sure there are several more, but Just to prove my point that wind turbines do, in fact, require maintainance on a regular basis I will link to a recent story on gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/360117/exploding-wind-turbine-video-is-destruction-delicious
100,000,000 USD that Mr. Gore has recieved by traveling to speak. One hundred million dollars. I ask again: How much of this money has he spent to buy "carbon credits/offsets?"
(quotes are from wikipedia article linked to by direct parent.)
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say....
If you are saying that you think solar & wind power are cleaner and cheaper than nuclear, then I would have to disagree.
With photovoltiac cells, and wind turbines there are three environmental costs to consider:
1) Cost of construction.
2) Cost of operation (this includes space required).
3) Cost of disposal.
Nuclear only has two of these issues (1 & 3), and while they are slightly more burdensome (long half-life) they require less work;
To dispose of nuclear waste, you need only contain it until it decays--this is where most of the problems are. Currently our solutions for storing nuclear waste will not last long enough, and will as a consequence have to be replaced eventually.
The important piece of information that your first link doesn't include is the generation cost per kilowatt hour of solar/wind/nuclear power. This is important information.
If this concencus that you refer to is the UN group on climate change (I'm not sure of the name) then it is totally devoid of merit as far as I am concerned. They make a politically motivated report and then tack on the names of every educated person to have been associated with the group, whether or not those individual persons agree with the so-called "concencus." There have been at least two or three prominant scientists who have had to fight tooth, claw and nail to get their names taken off the list--with varying degrees of success. If you are referring to some other, indepandant study, then I'm sorry for ranting.
Yes, our data dating from the beginning of the 20th century up until now shows that average global temperatures are on the rise. Apart from minor changes (on a relative scale) to coastal communities like the one discussed in TFA, the net effect of increasing global temperatures is positive.
The "try asking them how they feel" arguement isn't going to get much sympathy from me (for any but the directly effected), because the net impact on society is positive.