The same way any animal figures out how to find food, survive, reproduce... All involves pathfinding, and I don't know if you've ever flown before, but pathfinding is pretty easy a few miles up. Right up to a birds alley. And taking turn at flying first is most easily explained: these birds didn't start migrating thousands of miles to begin with. First a few miles was enough, then a hundred, then more, etc. Along the way some birds discovered the spared energy by taking flying not in front, and that's why every bird that flies in front moves to the back. You didn't actually think they know they're taking turns, right? They just move to the back, when they're in front, that's all.
And that last sentence... : please, prove why that's true or be serious and tell me/us where exeactly science is going wrong..
And before the athism=religion crowd moves in here: it's irrelevant. The point is that some people actually do not believe in gods or supernatural stuff and do not engage in other kinds of cultist rituals commonly associated with religion. If you cannot grasp that, then you're just as ignorant as these Muslims.
The fact that is both a) airborn and thus easily inhaled and easily penetrates _everywhere_ b) huge amounts of coal make small concentrations matter, makes that it is in fact more dangerous than nuclear, that is proper nuclear as it is practiced in Europe, where almost all radioactive waste is recycled.
Of course, the problems is not how efficient a plant is at capturing the energy released, but at how much filth it requires you to put into the environment. Coal plants spew huge amounts of CO2 right into the atmosphere and nuclear obviously does not. Coal puts even more radioactive material (contained in the coals) into the air than nuclearplants generate radioactive waste.
Not to mention the clean coal plants are expensive/kWh, I'm not sure if it's more or less expensive than nuclear, but I think its not much cheaper if it is.
Which only demonstrates how ridiculously filthy burning gasoline and diesel really is.
I agree, using coal to power electric cars is preferable to the current system, but really, nuclear and electric cars is even cleaner.
A/democratic/ government is always accountable, the fact that you feel it can't, says something about/your/ specific government (that it is (in reality) not (very) democratic), not government in general.
The government is only somuch a force as it exerts power. If it doesn't exert power, it doesn't have it. If it doesn't have it, someone else can take it, a foreign nation or a (seperate from the government) group of people (businesses). Power over humans and humans activities is a zero-sum game: there's a quantity x to control, and the parts you don't control, can be controlled by others.
The way a government exerts its power, depends on the form of government. The idea behind a democracy is that the people, through voting, control the government. Therefore, if you the people do not (or think you cannot) control your government, it's either not democratic, because of you thinking its not democratic do not exercise your democatic rights, or you're not that interested nor motivated to do anything at all.
I get the feeling you are American (I'm European, and many Americans I know have a much more anti-big-government attitude than the Europeans I know) so I'm going to assume you feel this way because you are in the US. Politics aside, in many European nations it's not uncommon for federal administrations to (prematurely, based on terms) fall and mandate new (premature) elections. I see this as an indication of how in control the people of the government is. Although the media has a big share in public opinion, making an administration end prematurely, mostly on the basis of doing something that the people doesnt want. In the US this has only happened once to my knowledge (Reagan), which indicates either that the US govnt does exactly what its people want or its people doesnt care whatever the govnt does. From what I see there's alot of unhappiness with the federal govnt in the US, supported by the fact that lots of Americans think that small government is the solution (because big govnt doesnt do anything right).
This is where it gets interesting. Either the voices calling for smaller governments is right, or:
-power being a zerosum game
-the fact that the people in politics are often the same as those in nongovntal organisations (businesses/corporations)
-convincing the people that small govnt is a good thing
these people use their elected positions to enhance theirs or others nonelected positions (in corporations etc) and thereby moving the power not from govnt to the people, but from govnt to the corps.
Now is that plausible or not? That's not a rethorical question btw, I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
The reason that MS bends over backwards for backwards compatibility is that that's the only reason for using it's software: slews and slews of 3rd party apps that users have grown accustomed to. If they'd take that away, there's no sense in sticking with Microsoft: everyone could jump ship to Linux/OSX.
For 16bit MSDOS programs Dosbox suffices, but for 16bit Windows programs is does not.
Not that for most that'll be a big downer, but technically it's perfectly possible to run 16bit Windows apps in Windows64bit.
The GUI is definitely part of the GUI, or were you trying to argue otherwise? The OS is in this case Microsoft Windows Vista in it's entirety, not some arbitrary pieces of it.
With Aero being enabled if possible automatically by the OS, and being an order of magnitude more resource consuming than for example OSX and Compiz, the OS is indeed much more sluggish than XP or some others.
And let us not talk about the performance benefits of DX10 over DX9. Review and gamesites show time and time again Vista with DX10 is slower when compared to the same game on the same machine with DX9, and the benefits are minimal. Even Microsofts own latest Flight Simulator which was to be a DX10 showcase performs better on XP, and is visually nearly the same (checkout the various FS forums for more anecdotal evidence).
Yes, Vista is better than XP in some aspects, but as a whole the OS just offers less than XP for many if not most. The pros are mostly pros on paper where the cons are immeadeately obvious, even for normal users.
I know it's a popular argument against DRM, and while DRM is bad, the argument is faulty.
Your computer is Bob and you as Eve are on reasonably good terms with Bob and so he'll tell you most things you want to know, only Bob keeps his sources secret. This is a perfectly workable situation (as far a technical implementation goes), but it mandates that you the user (Eve) do not control your computer (Bob) fully. Perfectly implementable, even with OSS software.
The deeper point is that OSS, or at least Free software in the GNU sense, is all about the opposite: You (Eve) should be in total control of your computer (Bob), and not the other way round. The reality of DRM is offcourse that Alica and Bob will be both under control of Microsoft/RIAA/BadGuysInc so you the computer owner are relegated to a status of user of the computer, not owner.
How is putting your own server between the 3rd party server (Google or some other) and your client helping me? What is more secure when I do that? I really can't see the benefits, only perhaps if you have a LAN with many people.
It's not grounded at all (house was built before ground was mandated), but what I find weird is that the USB channels are insulated from the case (verified myself, only connect to the motherboard) and generates that 'feel' on the casing of my external HDD (where the USB ground does connect to the case, for some reason).
Thing is he (Fisher) didn't lead the planes into the building, he's just commenting, whereas Stalin had the power (and the will) to actually do all the bad stuff. So remembering for what he did is a whole lot different to remembering what Stalin did. What Fisher did what being good at chess, and he developed some weird notions later in life, just like many other senile elderly do, their brains are deteriorating. I wonder if he really was clear of mind anymore when he spouted all his nonsense.
Also, about 9/11, he voices what a lot of people in the world think, even if it is only deep down. The US had it coming, and while most won't like how it happened (unlike Bobby Fisher), many people do like that something happened, and that is I think the sentiment Fisher voices.
Slashdot Mirror
The same way any animal figures out how to find food, survive, reproduce... All involves pathfinding, and I don't know if you've ever flown before, but pathfinding is pretty easy a few miles up. Right up to a birds alley. And taking turn at flying first is most easily explained: these birds didn't start migrating thousands of miles to begin with. First a few miles was enough, then a hundred, then more, etc. Along the way some birds discovered the spared energy by taking flying not in front, and that's why every bird that flies in front moves to the back. You didn't actually think they know they're taking turns, right? They just move to the back, when they're in front, that's all. And that last sentence... : please, prove why that's true or be serious and tell me/us where exeactly science is going wrong..
The rumor is that Sony right now is breaking even on the PS3. Any new cost saving measures such as this will make it profitable.
Ermm.... Atheists (or whatever you want to call them) _have_ decided. That this religion thing is not their cup of tea.
And before the athism=religion crowd moves in here: it's irrelevant. The point is that some people actually do not believe in gods or supernatural stuff and do not engage in other kinds of cultist rituals commonly associated with religion. If you cannot grasp that, then you're just as ignorant as these Muslims.
The fact that is both a) airborn and thus easily inhaled and easily penetrates _everywhere_ b) huge amounts of coal make small concentrations matter, makes that it is in fact more dangerous than nuclear, that is proper nuclear as it is practiced in Europe, where almost all radioactive waste is recycled.
Of course, the problems is not how efficient a plant is at capturing the energy released, but at how much filth it requires you to put into the environment. Coal plants spew huge amounts of CO2 right into the atmosphere and nuclear obviously does not. Coal puts even more radioactive material (contained in the coals) into the air than nuclearplants generate radioactive waste. Not to mention the clean coal plants are expensive/kWh, I'm not sure if it's more or less expensive than nuclear, but I think its not much cheaper if it is.
Which only demonstrates how ridiculously filthy burning gasoline and diesel really is. I agree, using coal to power electric cars is preferable to the current system, but really, nuclear and electric cars is even cleaner.
A /democratic/ government is always accountable, the fact that you feel it can't, says something about /your/ specific government (that it is (in reality) not (very) democratic), not government in general.
The government is only somuch a force as it exerts power. If it doesn't exert power, it doesn't have it. If it doesn't have it, someone else can take it, a foreign nation or a (seperate from the government) group of people (businesses). Power over humans and humans activities is a zero-sum game: there's a quantity x to control, and the parts you don't control, can be controlled by others.
The way a government exerts its power, depends on the form of government. The idea behind a democracy is that the people, through voting, control the government. Therefore, if you the people do not (or think you cannot) control your government, it's either not democratic, because of you thinking its not democratic do not exercise your democatic rights, or you're not that interested nor motivated to do anything at all.
I get the feeling you are American (I'm European, and many Americans I know have a much more anti-big-government attitude than the Europeans I know) so I'm going to assume you feel this way because you are in the US. Politics aside, in many European nations it's not uncommon for federal administrations to (prematurely, based on terms) fall and mandate new (premature) elections. I see this as an indication of how in control the people of the government is. Although the media has a big share in public opinion, making an administration end prematurely, mostly on the basis of doing something that the people doesnt want. In the US this has only happened once to my knowledge (Reagan), which indicates either that the US govnt does exactly what its people want or its people doesnt care whatever the govnt does. From what I see there's alot of unhappiness with the federal govnt in the US, supported by the fact that lots of Americans think that small government is the solution (because big govnt doesnt do anything right).
This is where it gets interesting. Either the voices calling for smaller governments is right, or:
-power being a zerosum game
-the fact that the people in politics are often the same as those in nongovntal organisations (businesses/corporations)
-convincing the people that small govnt is a good thing
these people use their elected positions to enhance theirs or others nonelected positions (in corporations etc) and thereby moving the power not from govnt to the people, but from govnt to the corps.
Now is that plausible or not? That's not a rethorical question btw, I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
This is just a scientific trial, and they have social healthcare in Finland, so it didnt cost him a penny.
The reason that MS bends over backwards for backwards compatibility is that that's the only reason for using it's software: slews and slews of 3rd party apps that users have grown accustomed to. If they'd take that away, there's no sense in sticking with Microsoft: everyone could jump ship to Linux/OSX.
For 16bit MSDOS programs Dosbox suffices, but for 16bit Windows programs is does not. Not that for most that'll be a big downer, but technically it's perfectly possible to run 16bit Windows apps in Windows64bit.
My bad, should've been GUI is part of the OS. Special thanks for the no-edit option.
The GUI is definitely part of the GUI, or were you trying to argue otherwise? The OS is in this case Microsoft Windows Vista in it's entirety, not some arbitrary pieces of it. With Aero being enabled if possible automatically by the OS, and being an order of magnitude more resource consuming than for example OSX and Compiz, the OS is indeed much more sluggish than XP or some others. And let us not talk about the performance benefits of DX10 over DX9. Review and gamesites show time and time again Vista with DX10 is slower when compared to the same game on the same machine with DX9, and the benefits are minimal. Even Microsofts own latest Flight Simulator which was to be a DX10 showcase performs better on XP, and is visually nearly the same (checkout the various FS forums for more anecdotal evidence). Yes, Vista is better than XP in some aspects, but as a whole the OS just offers less than XP for many if not most. The pros are mostly pros on paper where the cons are immeadeately obvious, even for normal users.
I heard that SP1 will have a slimmed down Linux-kernel with Wine for improved backwards compatibility.
Few million? More like Eddi3.
and both windows 2003 (any version) and xp 64bit were NT5.2.
Jeebus, I even laughed... Can this guy be blocked or tracked down? He's been posting this racist bullshit for a few days now; its getting annoying.
I know it's a popular argument against DRM, and while DRM is bad, the argument is faulty. Your computer is Bob and you as Eve are on reasonably good terms with Bob and so he'll tell you most things you want to know, only Bob keeps his sources secret. This is a perfectly workable situation (as far a technical implementation goes), but it mandates that you the user (Eve) do not control your computer (Bob) fully. Perfectly implementable, even with OSS software. The deeper point is that OSS, or at least Free software in the GNU sense, is all about the opposite: You (Eve) should be in total control of your computer (Bob), and not the other way round. The reality of DRM is offcourse that Alica and Bob will be both under control of Microsoft/RIAA/BadGuysInc so you the computer owner are relegated to a status of user of the computer, not owner.
I've got the feeling there's a kkk escapee on the loose here: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=424160&cid=22113806
Seems like reversing the polarity on phase inducers would do the trick.
Euh.... get a life?
Doesn't licensing it under both GPLv2 and v defeat the whole purpose of v3?
How is putting your own server between the 3rd party server (Google or some other) and your client helping me? What is more secure when I do that? I really can't see the benefits, only perhaps if you have a LAN with many people.
It's not grounded at all (house was built before ground was mandated), but what I find weird is that the USB channels are insulated from the case (verified myself, only connect to the motherboard) and generates that 'feel' on the casing of my external HDD (where the USB ground does connect to the case, for some reason).
Thing is he (Fisher) didn't lead the planes into the building, he's just commenting, whereas Stalin had the power (and the will) to actually do all the bad stuff. So remembering for what he did is a whole lot different to remembering what Stalin did. What Fisher did what being good at chess, and he developed some weird notions later in life, just like many other senile elderly do, their brains are deteriorating. I wonder if he really was clear of mind anymore when he spouted all his nonsense. Also, about 9/11, he voices what a lot of people in the world think, even if it is only deep down. The US had it coming, and while most won't like how it happened (unlike Bobby Fisher), many people do like that something happened, and that is I think the sentiment Fisher voices.