He gets the right channel, she gets the left . . .
btw, while Hatch *is* from a community property state (Utah), 43 of the United States are *not* The states that were once spanish (CA, UT, AZ, NM, CO) or french (LA) use CP, as does Wisconsin (for no apparent reason; they suddenly switched [Yes, CP makes more sense, but the gains don't begin to cover transition costs])
While I'm at it, how often to policians from that far right get this positive of responses around here?:)
Everyone knows that they're much more spectacular *on top* of the grill--you can see them better, they spend more time melting into cool shapes before burning, . . .
I read it, and I did not misrepresent you. They were not so much kicked out, as left because they wren't allowed to do what they wanted.
Specifically, the *only* requirement placed on this group was that they receive Communion once per year in the Church of England. They left rather than comply; they weren't kicked out.
It wasn't about them being strict; they were otherwise allowed to do whatever they wanted among themselves.
1) When the state does it, it's called lotto; when the mob runs the exact same game, it's called the numbers racket (yes, it's the same game. I knew a former courier who told of them using the police band to show the game was fair--they used the numbers of squad cars being called out as their numbers . ..)
Eggs crack when hitting the ground! water is wet! cats sleep in sunspots!
It's hardly newsworthy that electronic voting is full of perils. What *is* interesting is that anybody *doesn't* see why it's full of problems.
Also, he report doesn't go far enough. The secret ballot is a *very* big deal, and was instrumental in breaking some of the machines and company-controlled elections. Having noone in the booth with you, whether you like it or not, and no way for anyone to tell how you voted makes reprisals/vote-selling/preferences from voting impossible. Remote electronic voting is a direct assualt on the secret ballot, and a giant step backwards.
The same die is used for multiple speeds, as noted elsewhere, and chips get sold at the speed for which they test reliably. There's no way of knowing which chip will be a 700 and which a 750, and thus the chip can't be set to directly reveal its identity.
However, the *range* of speeds at chich a chip might test are known ahead of time. With this, it is possible to put something destructable to indicate speed. Have fuses inside for the range of 600-900, in increments of whatever, and blow those for speeds in excess of the rating. A similar method for the physcial chips would be break-off tabs indicating hte speed; break off distance beyond which the chip isn't verified.
>That's sorta true - however, the 8086, which was >BEFORE the 8088, had a 16 bit bus.
That's almost true:) The 8086 was not *before* the 8088; the 8085, 8086, and 8088 were introduced simultaneously.
>The 8 bit bus was actually from the 8080 (or the >competing Z80), which was an 8 bit processor.
I remember those quite well. I even have an 8080:) However, the busses used varied widely. To the best of my knowledge, the IBM PC bus did not relate to any 8 bit busses . . .
>The 8086 was short lived for cost reasons,
short-lived? It was in wide use by almost everyone except IBM until the 286 became commonplace. At that point, it fell largely out of use, and the 8088 was used in budget machines.
>so most people (i.e. you) associate the 16 bit >bus with the 286.
Uhh, no. Aside from that I remember all of this from when it was happening, I most certainly do not make any such association.
However, the *particular* 16 bit bus that was being discussed is the IBM PC/AT bus, which was introduced with the attached 286, and extended the 8 bit bus of the IBM PC which used an 8088. There were several other 16 bit busses at the time, including Olivetti's and Vector's, which extended the 8 bit pc bus, and an extension to the S-100 favored by companies such as Compupro.
I really don't *care* about the big corporations (except, of course, those I indirectly own, but I don't know which ones they are).
I *do* care about not being able to get where I'm going because a big-labor leader who makes 20 times what I or the members will ever see engages in a power play.
I *do* care about dying from a heart attack because all of cardiac OR nurses mysteriously were sick that day.
Doing something to support a union should not be some kind of general exemption to the civil and criminal law, *especially* when it harms third parties.
It seems to be a mix of about 10% country themes/melodic pattern, 100% pop-style shrieking, overinstrumentalization, and the like, and -10% any form of intelligence:)
Stations are increasingly identifying themselves as either "New Country" or "Real Country."
Let's suppose that you're an employer involved in contract talks with the union. Such talks are *heavily* regulated, with all kinds of potential nasty behavior made illegal under federal law.
One of these illegal acts, under appropriate circumstances, is a strike. Another is a "sick-in".
Let's further suppose that during bitter talks, half of your employees call in sick on the same day. Given that other employers, even those with employees working alongsideyours at the airport, didn't have abnormal sick counts, you suspect that it's the union's doing. Are you being unreasonable in thinking this? [And if you are, why would the union do it???]
You lose hundreds of millions of dollars by being essentially shut down for the day with no advance notice. For some reason, this makes you unhappy. It would *easily* be worth $5k for you to do a search for any evidence showing who organized this criminal act against you.
This is roughly what happened in the airline case; it wasn't a matter of general snooping about in employee's affairs, but a matter of routine discovery involving other parties (the employees) to litigation.
Basically, faced with a sickout, you know that there's some organization going on; it's a matter of finding it.
Yes, those horrid rouge sites. We've all seen the garden variety office catfight, and the comments about weight. What is little known is that it's not because women behave this way, but because of the evil makeup industry and its rouge sites.
At the departmental level, a whispered "she gained 10 pounds" may be sufficient. At the executive level, it's different. One snide post about "her pasty complexion" sells plenty of rouge, but not before her career is rouged, err, ruined . . .
Hell, these aren't even *my* opinions, let alone my employer's . . .
That was an extension to the 8-bit bus for the 8088, and the reason that the connector is two pieces--the big section is the old 8088/8bit section, with the smaller section added on the AT.
>it's not the djs that suck, it's the commercials. >Think about, what is the reason, 80% of the >time, you change the station?
In order?
a) new country b) babbling idiot of an "on-air personality". (including all of those patronizing imbeciles on syndicated programming). DJ's are fine. c) commercials.
At which point, you open a burrito shop on teh next corner.
Now, if you are prevented from doing this, even though you offer the prevailing rate to rent the premises, this is a serious problem. However, we've now left the realm of capitalism, and are discussing fascism
>Putting your toothbrush under your absolute >control has no ill effect on society;
[ed note: you're making strong assumptions about his dental hygiene. How do you know he's not one of those people that society would be *much* better off if forced to use his toothbrush every day???;) ]
>however, putting the means of production >under the control of a few divides society into a >minority of powerful owners and a minority of >alienated workers.
Yes, we've seen the amazing successes of central planning . . .
And how did the means of production land in the hands of those who control it? Gee, it might not have *anything* to do with them having created those means, or caused the production of those means by combining what already existed?
And, certainly, they would create just as many means if they knew the fruits of their own labor would be taken from them in the name of labor . . .
People are choosing wrong, they don't *really* want what they're buying, or choosing. Turn control over to us, and we'll give them what they want, instead of what they think they want.
Oh, and for good measure, we'll forcibly relabel their nationalities. Goodthink all around.
Nobody listens to us because we don't get the access. Give us the access (on your nickel, not ours), and we'd be just as popular.
\end{sarcasm}
The anglo-american notion of free speech is *not* the right to be heard, nor the right to the means to spread your message (although the constitution of the U.S.S.R. did guarantee these, along with religious freedom). It's the right to *not be silenced*. Getting people to listen is your problem, and noone elses.
If you can show that the megacorps or government came and stole your publications (whoops, that was student radicals, not th government), or if you can show that they jammed your airtime, we'll get concerned. Until then, we'll assume that you're just not popular because noone agrees with you ...
Now *that* would be worth paying for . . . DJ's instead of those "personalities" . . . The entire broadcast spectrum in the morning, regardless of type of music, has been taken over by the "morning moron" format. . . . Dozen's of stations competign to find who can most proficiencly display their lack of intelligence . . .
So I want stations with DJ's, not "personalities"--just shut up and spin the records. (ok, I just dated myself:)
Currently, I have radio channels on digital cable. The classic country station is better than the one that fidhnryeotk has, cutting off right before new country rather than the arbitrary 1979 (missing some of the best Merle Haggard, among others).
>Just because North America was (invaded? >re-settled?) by people who were kicked out of >England because their religious views were too >strict
Uh, no. The pilgrims did *not* come seeking religious freedom, nor did they regard it as a virtue. They are about the most religiously intolerant group history has seen.
The puritans *were* allowed to do their own thing in England. However, they wanted to "purify" the church of England--that is, make the *rest* of the country comply with their beliefs. Yes, these are the people that made celebrating Christmas a criminal offense (seriously!).
They came to North America to establish a theocracy, which they weren't allowed to do in Europe.
There were a couple of weird products before it, but the SE on had this capacity. As the Mac II was introduced at the same time, I assume it has already had it.
I had a 19" 1024x768 screen attached to my SE/30 in 1989, as a second display (and at the time, I was really more interested in mirroring, because I wanted to be able to turn the internal display towards my clients . ..)
Ultrix? as a superior unix? I don't think that even the folks that wrote it like it:)
After many years of reading alt.folklore.computers, I think that the nicest thing I've ever seen anyone say about it is that it wasn't VMS . . . or that one version of it wasn't as much a pain as another that shared nothing but the mname . . .
At $100, I'd get this or something similar for my father-in-law for Christmas, and not feel bad about the extra $2/month he'd be paying (compared to other providers). At $400, a used computer fits the bill much better . . .
Slashdot Mirror
This seems to me to be a breach of his duties to his reader . . .
"Is what you wrote true?"
"I won't say."
I fail to see any legitimate interest of anyone being protected by this.
Which really does the copyright owners' work for them--sort by score . . .
Hmm, so what would the feedbacks be?
*cool thief!
*steals crummy stuff, don't bother
. . .
:)
hawk
He gets the right channel, she gets the left . . .
:)
btw, while Hatch *is* from a community property state (Utah), 43 of the United States are *not*
The states that were once spanish (CA, UT, AZ, NM, CO) or french (LA) use CP, as does Wisconsin (for no apparent reason; they suddenly switched [Yes, CP makes more sense, but the gains don't begin to cover transition costs])
While I'm at it, how often to policians from that far right get this positive of responses around here?
>An ex of mine once put my CDs under the grill
Everyone knows that they're much more spectacular *on top* of the grill--you can see them better, they spend more time melting into cool shapes before burning, . . .
:)
hwk
> I didn't even know that cats could survive on
> the sun, let alone that they preferred
> sunspots to other areas.
Oh, yes, they love Suns. They're not so hot on 390's, but . . .
:)
I read it, and I did not misrepresent you. They were not so much kicked out, as left because they wren't allowed to do what they wanted.
Specifically, the *only* requirement placed on this group was that they receive Communion once per year in the Church of England. They left rather than comply; they weren't kicked out.
It wasn't about them being strict; they were otherwise allowed to do whatever they wanted among themselves.
hawk
1) When the state does it, it's called lotto; when the mob runs the exact same game, it's called the numbers racket (yes, it's the same game. I knew a former courier who told of them using the police band to show the game was fair--they used the numbers of squad cars being called out as their numbers . . .)
2) the mob would be embarassed to only return 50%
Eggs crack when hitting the ground!
water is wet!
cats sleep in sunspots!
It's hardly newsworthy that electronic voting is full of perils. What *is* interesting is that anybody *doesn't* see why it's full of problems.
Also, he report doesn't go far enough. The secret ballot is a *very* big deal, and was instrumental in breaking some of the machines and company-controlled elections. Having noone in the booth with you, whether you like it or not, and no way for anyone to tell how you voted makes reprisals/vote-selling/preferences from voting impossible. Remote electronic voting is a direct assualt on the secret ballot, and a giant step backwards.
On-die fuses.
The same die is used for multiple speeds, as noted elsewhere, and chips get sold at the speed for which they test reliably. There's no way of knowing which chip will be a 700 and which a 750, and thus the chip can't be set to directly reveal its identity.
However, the *range* of speeds at chich a chip might test are known ahead of time. With this, it is possible to put something destructable to indicate speed. Have fuses inside for the range of 600-900, in increments of whatever, and blow those for speeds in excess of the rating. A similar method for the physcial chips would be break-off tabs indicating hte speed; break off distance beyond which the chip isn't verified.
hawk
>That's sorta true - however, the 8086, which was >BEFORE the 8088, had a 16 bit bus.
:) The 8086 was not *before* the 8088; the 8085, 8086, and 8088 were introduced simultaneously.
:) However, the busses used varied widely. To the best of my knowledge, the IBM PC bus did not relate to any 8 bit busses . . .
That's almost true
>The 8 bit bus was actually from the 8080 (or the >competing Z80), which was an 8 bit processor.
I remember those quite well. I even have an 8080
>The 8086 was short lived for cost reasons,
short-lived? It was in wide use by almost everyone except IBM until the 286 became commonplace. At that point, it fell largely out of use, and the 8088 was used in budget machines.
>so most people (i.e. you) associate the 16 bit >bus with the 286.
Uhh, no. Aside from that I remember all of this from when it was happening, I most certainly do not make any such association.
However, the *particular* 16 bit bus that was being discussed is the IBM PC/AT bus, which was introduced with the attached 286, and extended the 8 bit bus of the IBM PC which used an 8088. There were several other 16 bit busses at the time, including Olivetti's and Vector's, which extended the 8 bit pc bus, and an extension to the S-100 favored by companies such as Compupro.
hawk
I really don't *care* about the big corporations (except, of course, those I indirectly own, but I don't know which ones they are).
I *do* care about not being able to get where I'm going because a big-labor leader who makes 20 times what I or the members will ever see engages in a power play.
I *do* care about dying from a heart attack because all of cardiac OR nurses mysteriously were sick that day.
Doing something to support a union should not be some kind of general exemption to the civil and criminal law, *especially* when it harms third parties.
hawk
It's sure not like country, though.
:)
It seems to be a mix of about 10% country themes/melodic pattern, 100% pop-style shrieking, overinstrumentalization, and the like, and -10% any form of intelligence
Stations are increasingly identifying themselves as either "New Country" or "Real Country."
hawk
Let's suppose that you're an employer involved in contract talks with the union. Such talks are *heavily* regulated, with all kinds of potential nasty behavior made illegal under federal law.
One of these illegal acts, under appropriate circumstances, is a strike. Another is a "sick-in".
Let's further suppose that during bitter talks, half of your employees call in sick on the same day. Given that other employers, even those with employees working alongsideyours at the airport, didn't have abnormal sick counts, you suspect that it's the union's doing. Are you being unreasonable in thinking this? [And if you are, why would the union do it???]
You lose hundreds of millions of dollars by being essentially shut down for the day with no advance notice. For some reason, this makes you unhappy. It would *easily* be worth $5k for you to do a search for any evidence showing who organized this criminal act against you.
This is roughly what happened in the airline case; it wasn't a matter of general snooping about in employee's affairs, but a matter of routine discovery involving other parties (the employees) to litigation.
Basically, faced with a sickout, you know that there's some organization going on; it's a matter of finding it.
hawk, esq., not giving legal advice.
Yes, those horrid rouge sites. We've all seen the garden variety office catfight, and the comments about weight. What is little known is that it's not because women behave this way, but because of the evil makeup industry and its rouge sites.
At the departmental level, a whispered "she gained 10 pounds" may be sufficient. At the executive level, it's different. One snide post about "her pasty complexion" sells plenty of rouge, but not before her career is rouged, err, ruined . . .
Hell, these aren't even *my* opinions, let alone my employer's . . .
That was an extension to the 8-bit bus for the 8088, and the reason that the connector is two pieces--the big section is the old 8088/8bit section, with the smaller section added on the AT.
hawk
>it's not the djs that suck, it's the commercials.
>Think about, what is the reason, 80% of the
>time, you change the station?
In order?
a) new country
b) babbling idiot of an "on-air personality". (including all of those patronizing imbeciles on syndicated programming). DJ's are fine.
c) commercials.
At which point, you open a burrito shop on teh next corner.
Now, if you are prevented from doing this, even though you offer the prevailing rate to rent the premises, this is a serious problem. However, we've now left the realm of capitalism, and are discussing fascism
hawk, the economist
>Putting your toothbrush under your absolute
;) ]
>control has no ill effect on society;
[ed note: you're making strong assumptions about his dental hygiene. How do you know he's not one of those people that society would be *much* better off if forced to use his toothbrush every day???
>however, putting the means of production
>under the control of a few divides society into a
>minority of powerful owners and a minority of
>alienated workers.
Yes, we've seen the amazing successes of central planning . . .
And how did the means of production land in the hands of those who control it? Gee, it might not have *anything* to do with them having created those means, or caused the production of those means by combining what already existed?
And, certainly, they would create just as many means if they knew the fruits of their own labor would be taken from them in the name of labor . . .
hawk
Ahh, yes, it's all the mega-corps.
..
People are choosing wrong, they don't *really* want what they're buying, or choosing. Turn control over to us, and we'll give them what they want, instead of what they think they want.
Oh, and for good measure, we'll forcibly relabel their nationalities. Goodthink all around.
Nobody listens to us because we don't get the access. Give us the access (on your nickel, not ours), and we'd be just as popular.
\end{sarcasm}
The anglo-american notion of free speech is *not* the right to be heard, nor the right to the means to spread your message (although the constitution of the U.S.S.R. did guarantee these, along with religious freedom). It's the right to *not be silenced*. Getting people to listen is your problem, and noone elses.
If you can show that the megacorps or government came and stole your publications (whoops, that was student radicals, not th government), or if you can show that they jammed your airtime, we'll get concerned. Until then, we'll assume that you're just not popular because noone agrees with you .
hawk, an Americn
Now *that* would be worth paying for . . . DJ's instead of those "personalities" . . . The entire broadcast spectrum in the morning, regardless of type of music, has been taken over by the "morning moron" format. . . . Dozen's of stations competign to find who can most proficiencly display their lack of intelligence . . .
:)
:)
So I want stations with DJ's, not "personalities"--just shut up and spin the records. (ok, I just dated myself
Currently, I have radio channels on digital cable. The classic country station is better than the one that fidhnryeotk has, cutting off right before new country rather than the arbitrary 1979 (missing some of the best Merle Haggard, among others).
hmm, I'm ranting
hawk
>An urban legend.
:)
No, they really named the car Nova. It's just the part about the Nova and Mexico that's an urban legend
>Just because North America was (invaded?
>re-settled?) by people who were kicked out of
>England because their religious views were too >strict
Uh, no. The pilgrims did *not* come seeking religious freedom, nor did they regard it as a virtue. They are about the most religiously intolerant group history has seen.
The puritans *were* allowed to do their own thing in England. However, they wanted to "purify" the church of England--that is, make the *rest* of the country comply with their beliefs. Yes, these are the people that made celebrating Christmas a criminal offense (seriously!).
They came to North America to establish a theocracy, which they weren't allowed to do in Europe.
There were a couple of weird products before it, but the SE on had this capacity. As the Mac II was introduced at the same time, I assume it has already had it.
.)
I had a 19" 1024x768 screen attached to my SE/30 in 1989, as a second display (and at the time, I was really more interested in mirroring, because I wanted to be able to turn the internal display towards my clients . .
hawk
Ultrix? as a superior unix? I don't think that even the folks that wrote it like it :)
After many years of reading alt.folklore.computers, I think that the nicest thing I've ever seen anyone say about it is that it wasn't VMS . . . or that one version of it wasn't as much a pain as another that shared nothing but the mname . . .
At $100, I'd get this or something similar for my father-in-law for Christmas, and not feel bad about the extra $2/month he'd be paying (compared to other providers). At $400, a used computer fits the bill much better . . .