What's your wikipedia username? This looks an awful lot like the usual wikitroll canned response. I don't have a wikipedia username and I don't contribute to wikipedia, nor do I know anyone that does. I am also not an anti-semite. It astounds me that you think I'm somehow in on this whole conspiracy simply because I asked for some justification for your argument that they were anti-semitic. This is like Bush's "if you're not with us, you're against us" campaign. I guess asking someone to source their arguments is just too much these days.
If you're ever slandered or libeled, you will realize the error of your ways.
If you don't speak of the Jews in a glowingly positive manner, you're anti-semitic. Sorry but I haven't found that to be the case at all. Having grown up in a Jewish neigborhood, I can safely say that Jews seem to be less sensitive than most groups, more willing to take things in stride, and don't mind good natured ribbing in the slightest. Of course, this has limits (like they don't fuck around when it comes to stuff like the holocost). I'm sure you can find the occasional person who's more sensitive than most but every group has that (including the Christian majority).
Keep in mind that anti-semitism is pretty rampant. I'm a gamer and I frequently see it in the gaming world where anonymous people think that being anti-semitic or racist is perfectly fine. It's even more surprising how few people call them on their bullshit.
I mailed proof positive (full emails + screenshots) of malfeasance by editor AGK acting in league with anti-semitic editors Please provide evidence. I'm not saying you're lying or anything but if you're going to accuse them of being anti-semitic, you should justify it somehow otherwise it's just slander.
It's a shadow of its former self. Microsoft actually took them out, believe it or not. The Msft malicious software removal tool has taken care of it and the maintainers of the storm botnet got tired of dealing with it and let it go. See here for more info: http://blogs.technet.com/antimalware/archive/2007/09/20/storm-drain.aspx
So it's great that they came up with this but too bad it's pointless, at least for Storm. However, I'm sure they'll continue patting themselves on the back for fixing something that was already fixed.
You should be fine. If you're running RAID (specifically what they refer to as fakeRAID which is almost always the case for home users), you can have big problems where it will actually wipe out your boot sector and prevent you from starting either OS. However, that's easy to fix with a windows recovery console where you can tell it to fix the boot sector and it will at least give you your windows partion back. You still wouldn't have access to the ubuntu partion though. At least this is my experience.
I recommend trying http://passpack.com./ They offer single use passwords. It does require you to store your userid/pwd info on their site but I trust them more than entering this data into a publicly accessible computer. They do store your information in encrypted form and if you lose your passwords, you're screwed -- they cannot recover the data for you.
In any event their site is setup such that after you enter a single use password, you click the link to have it enter the data in for you on the login form. This means it's also OS neutral.
Fuck the planet...you just got shit wrong (not the that the other guy was right).
First off, you suggest having to replace a hybrid battery every 3 - 5 years. Lets use a real example, the Prius, instead of some hypothetical bullshit. Toyota has never had to replace a Prius battery (other than defective ones). Here's a link since I know you don't believe me: http://cleangreencar.vibrantplanet.com/page/faq-prius#Q12. I doubt you believe that so perhaps Toyota's 10 year 150,000 mile warranty on the battery is more convincing?
Second, you talk about how regulation has strangled the power plants in California and that's why they've had rolling brown-outs, etc. Perhaps you aren't familiar with Enron. They analy butt-raped California after getting them to deregulate the power in the state. They then requested various power plants they had ownership to arrange shutdowns to drive the price up. They would also arrange to ship power out of the state so the price would rise and then only bring it back after it was 3x what it was before. This little game cost California 30 BILLION DOLLARS, fuckhead. Regulations are put in place to stop greedy fuck-head companies like Enron from doing this shit and as soon as they deregulated, they dicked over the state. There's a whole film on it with actual recordings of their energy traders doing this. It's called Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room. Of course, you probably believe it's some kind of liberal BS campaign.
Any power shortages California has now are due to it's continuing rise in population combined with the ban on new nuclear plants. It has nothing to do with plant profitability you stupid dumbfuck. Here's a link showing how there's four plants currently under construction: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html#announced. I guess the builders aren't planning on making any money?
So STFU until you learn something other than what people like Rush Limpdick shove down your throat.
Finally, I'm not a democrat of liberal. I'm a realist. All power is abused and greed will grow to the point of ridiculous wherever and whenever it is allowed to. That's the nature of humanity and I'm sick and tired of all these idiots (like yourself) talking about how we don't need to control it. These regulations were put in place because people abused this shit in the past. Fuck it, you're a waste of time.
Huh? Are you serious? The Murdoch war-mongering propaganda machine is constantly lambasting the Times for being anti-war. The NY Times is one of the last respectable bastions of journalism. Anybody with a brain isn't going to be a cheerleader of this war. lol...seriously, you must be kidding. The NY Times has become as bad as the rest of them and prior to the war they they were so busy spewing pro-war bullshit and not asking any serious questions.
People can blame the Pentagon or the Bush administration for BSing the media but the media ate it up hook line and sinker because they wanted to. It's because of the performance of the news organizations prior to the start of the Iraq war that I no longer have any confidence in any of them (including the ones that are considered near infallible). Ethics are journalism got divorced once profit became the primary motivation for reporting.
I used to be in the Air Force and had the pleasure to watch these things launch. They took off with full afterburners and the entire base would shake from the roar of the engines. Blue flame rings would shoot many feet out the back of the engines. Watching the SR-71 take off was the most amazing thing I've ever seen and I would always stop to watch it. Others who had been in the AF over a dozen years would stop too even though they've seen it launch hundreds of times. Just an incredible and inspiring plane.
You always knew when they were going to launch one because they would start sending out tankers (3 to 4) a good hour or so before they launched the Blackbird.
I'll second that. US cops accidentally shooting a foreigner wouldn't make the national papers. Interesting...what evidence do you have to support such an assertion?
Oh come on, google it. There are so many articles on inaccurate polls and biased polls, that it's pointless to look at one in particular.
I will also reiterate my question... do you actually think that 900 random people can reliably represent 300 million? A statistician would say hell no because they need a 95% confidence level to make such an assertion.
My suggestion to you would be not to trust any poll where they don't provide the poll questions and number of people polled (which is usually the case). You might want to also read about the psycology of polling. There's all kinds of things that can tilt polls. For example, give the simple choice of yes and no to a poll question, did you know that the odds of answering yes are always higher?
At the time of the polls in question, the country was trying to stand behind the president and the press was supporting that. I would say it's almost a guarantee that those polls were mostly bullshit.
Polls are rarely indicative of reality for two reasons (and when they are it's purely by chance):
1) Poll questions are worded such that the desired answer is guaranteed to be favored in the poll. Even in cases where they tried hard to not introduce bias, they inherently bias the poll by making the answers yes/no instead of multiple choice.
2) Even if you ignore #1, they rarely have a large enough sample size to be statistically significant. For example, the BBC link above refers to a poll with a sample size of 900 people. Do you actually think 900 people adequately represent the beliefs of 300 million?
Polls are a joke. Please do not reference them as evidence of any sort.
Mod parent up, moral relativism is a bullshit creed of cowards and sophists. I hate to tell you this, but all morality is relative. In fact, there's no absolute anything in existence.
I agree that current Western "civilization" is soaked in hypocricy. lol...HUMANITY is soaked in hypocrisy. It's what truly separates us from the animals.
I'm talking about getting an optimal experience (assuming that's a concern). Also, it's not hard to get light into a room such that it's not glaring off the screen. Just make sure the light is behind the screen and not turned way up.
That doesn't cause it to collapse - it just causes it to borrow more money from China. Actually it does. Eventually our creditors will cut us off because we're too high a risk or our interest payment on our loans will exceed our total income.
While upper wage earners pay more tax (and keep in mind their income has sky-rocketed whereas the middle class and poor have incomes that are flat), when you include sales and property taxes it effects a greater portion of the the income of low wage earners. You can't just look at federal income tax and call it a day because it's hardly the whole picture.
It's all part of the homogenization of culture and thought here in the good ol' USofA. The goal is to fit in -- not stand out. If you stand out, there's probably something wrong with you. So really, why is there any reason to search for something that your friends haven't already found??
As a fellow hater of the republican and democratic parties, I agree that they are completely run by money. That said, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying it's pointless to vote for someone else. It's only pointless so long as everyone thinks it is. If people suddenly, by magic, were to believe otherwise then you would see people in office who don't have donkeys and elephants by their names.
So don't ever say it's "meaningless". It isn't. You're just jaded (along with 99% of the population).
*sigh* I mean the term "fade" in the perceived user experience rather than the technical term. In any event, you have it wrong too because CRT technology is based on the phosphors fading extremely quickly, many times per second as the scan gun runs across the screen. So, phosphors do, in fact, fade.
That said, I'll just quote what the IEEE says about CRT longevity:
"The longevity problem comes from the fact that the light-emitting efficiency of the phosphor coating decreases over time -- that is, when a phosphor is stimulated by a photon, it releases less and less light."
This leads to washed out colors. Anyone who doesn't notice this effect has to be blind because it's blatantly obvious to me and please note that I resisted getting an LCD TV for as long as possible (and bought one of the last models of large screen Sony CRTs made) so don't think I'm some kind of LCD fanboy. I'm not. However, the reminiscing over CRT is a bunch of hogwash.
Sorry but that's simply not possible. Phosphors fade over time. It's not debatable because it's a fact. (Feel free to google it.) If you haven't noticed it, it's simply because it's happened over time but I guarantee you that if you bought a brand new copy of that exact same monitor, the difference would shock you. The only way what you're saying could be true is if you have a monitor from 1993 that you rarely use, otherwise, it's just not possible. A work monitor that's used for 8 hours a day will have dramatic color loss in 5 years.
It's also a myth that CRTs simply have better color. The truth is that photographers and graphics artists had to use high-end CRTs to get accurate color representation (just like they have to do with LCDs). The typical CRT had poor color representation and even the high-end ones required frequent recalibration to maintain color accuracy due to the fading of the phosphors.
So, I will admit that expensive, high-end CRTs (top 1% at best) have better color than LCDs, this really isn't true for the vast majority of the population. Most users, including/. users, don't even know how to color calibrate their monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're ever slandered or libeled, you will realize the error of your ways.
Keep in mind that anti-semitism is pretty rampant. I'm a gamer and I frequently see it in the gaming world where anonymous people think that being anti-semitic or racist is perfectly fine. It's even more surprising how few people call them on their bullshit.
It's a shadow of its former self. Microsoft actually took them out, believe it or not. The Msft malicious software removal tool has taken care of it and the maintainers of the storm botnet got tired of dealing with it and let it go. See here for more info: http://blogs.technet.com/antimalware/archive/2007/09/20/storm-drain.aspx
So it's great that they came up with this but too bad it's pointless, at least for Storm. However, I'm sure they'll continue patting themselves on the back for fixing something that was already fixed.
You should be fine. If you're running RAID (specifically what they refer to as fakeRAID which is almost always the case for home users), you can have big problems where it will actually wipe out your boot sector and prevent you from starting either OS. However, that's easy to fix with a windows recovery console where you can tell it to fix the boot sector and it will at least give you your windows partion back. You still wouldn't have access to the ubuntu partion though. At least this is my experience.
I recommend trying http://passpack.com./ They offer single use passwords. It does require you to store your userid/pwd info on their site but I trust them more than entering this data into a publicly accessible computer. They do store your information in encrypted form and if you lose your passwords, you're screwed -- they cannot recover the data for you.
In any event their site is setup such that after you enter a single use password, you click the link to have it enter the data in for you on the login form. This means it's also OS neutral.
Fuck the planet...you just got shit wrong (not the that the other guy was right).
First off, you suggest having to replace a hybrid battery every 3 - 5 years. Lets use a real example, the Prius, instead of some hypothetical bullshit. Toyota has never had to replace a Prius battery (other than defective ones). Here's a link since I know you don't believe me: http://cleangreencar.vibrantplanet.com/page/faq-prius#Q12. I doubt you believe that so perhaps Toyota's 10 year 150,000 mile warranty on the battery is more convincing?
Second, you talk about how regulation has strangled the power plants in California and that's why they've had rolling brown-outs, etc. Perhaps you aren't familiar with Enron. They analy butt-raped California after getting them to deregulate the power in the state. They then requested various power plants they had ownership to arrange shutdowns to drive the price up. They would also arrange to ship power out of the state so the price would rise and then only bring it back after it was 3x what it was before. This little game cost California 30 BILLION DOLLARS, fuckhead. Regulations are put in place to stop greedy fuck-head companies like Enron from doing this shit and as soon as they deregulated, they dicked over the state. There's a whole film on it with actual recordings of their energy traders doing this. It's called Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room. Of course, you probably believe it's some kind of liberal BS campaign.
Any power shortages California has now are due to it's continuing rise in population combined with the ban on new nuclear plants. It has nothing to do with plant profitability you stupid dumbfuck. Here's a link showing how there's four plants currently under construction: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html#announced. I guess the builders aren't planning on making any money?
So STFU until you learn something other than what people like Rush Limpdick shove down your throat.
Finally, I'm not a democrat of liberal. I'm a realist. All power is abused and greed will grow to the point of ridiculous wherever and whenever it is allowed to. That's the nature of humanity and I'm sick and tired of all these idiots (like yourself) talking about how we don't need to control it. These regulations were put in place because people abused this shit in the past. Fuck it, you're a waste of time.
People can blame the Pentagon or the Bush administration for BSing the media but the media ate it up hook line and sinker because they wanted to. It's because of the performance of the news organizations prior to the start of the Iraq war that I no longer have any confidence in any of them (including the ones that are considered near infallible). Ethics are journalism got divorced once profit became the primary motivation for reporting.
I used to be in the Air Force and had the pleasure to watch these things launch. They took off with full afterburners and the entire base would shake from the roar of the engines. Blue flame rings would shoot many feet out the back of the engines. Watching the SR-71 take off was the most amazing thing I've ever seen and I would always stop to watch it. Others who had been in the AF over a dozen years would stop too even though they've seen it launch hundreds of times. Just an incredible and inspiring plane.
You always knew when they were going to launch one because they would start sending out tankers (3 to 4) a good hour or so before they launched the Blackbird.
Thanks NYCL. I wish all legal information were presented this clearly.
Oh come on, google it. There are so many articles on inaccurate polls and biased polls, that it's pointless to look at one in particular.
I will also reiterate my question... do you actually think that 900 random people can reliably represent 300 million? A statistician would say hell no because they need a 95% confidence level to make such an assertion.
My suggestion to you would be not to trust any poll where they don't provide the poll questions and number of people polled (which is usually the case). You might want to also read about the psycology of polling. There's all kinds of things that can tilt polls. For example, give the simple choice of yes and no to a poll question, did you know that the odds of answering yes are always higher?
At the time of the polls in question, the country was trying to stand behind the president and the press was supporting that. I would say it's almost a guarantee that those polls were mostly bullshit.
Polls are rarely indicative of reality for two reasons (and when they are it's purely by chance):
1) Poll questions are worded such that the desired answer is guaranteed to be favored in the poll. Even in cases where they tried hard to not introduce bias, they inherently bias the poll by making the answers yes/no instead of multiple choice.
2) Even if you ignore #1, they rarely have a large enough sample size to be statistically significant. For example, the BBC link above refers to a poll with a sample size of 900 people. Do you actually think 900 people adequately represent the beliefs of 300 million?
Polls are a joke. Please do not reference them as evidence of any sort.
Perception defines reality. Get used to it.
FFS, it was a HYPOTHETICAL situation used to illustrate a point. That's all.
I'm talking about getting an optimal experience (assuming that's a concern). Also, it's not hard to get light into a room such that it's not glaring off the screen. Just make sure the light is behind the screen and not turned way up.
While upper wage earners pay more tax (and keep in mind their income has sky-rocketed whereas the middle class and poor have incomes that are flat), when you include sales and property taxes it effects a greater portion of the the income of low wage earners. You can't just look at federal income tax and call it a day because it's hardly the whole picture.
lol...good question. Of course, they risk a revolt if they screw around like that but I guess I wouldn't be surprised either.
It's all part of the homogenization of culture and thought here in the good ol' USofA. The goal is to fit in -- not stand out. If you stand out, there's probably something wrong with you. So really, why is there any reason to search for something that your friends haven't already found??
I'm an atheist as well. I was just trying to make a point.
As a fellow hater of the republican and democratic parties, I agree that they are completely run by money. That said, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by saying it's pointless to vote for someone else. It's only pointless so long as everyone thinks it is. If people suddenly, by magic, were to believe otherwise then you would see people in office who don't have donkeys and elephants by their names.
So don't ever say it's "meaningless". It isn't. You're just jaded (along with 99% of the population).
*sigh* I mean the term "fade" in the perceived user experience rather than the technical term. In any event, you have it wrong too because CRT technology is based on the phosphors fading extremely quickly, many times per second as the scan gun runs across the screen. So, phosphors do, in fact, fade.
That said, I'll just quote what the IEEE says about CRT longevity:
"The longevity problem comes from the fact that the light-emitting efficiency of the phosphor coating decreases over time -- that is, when a phosphor is stimulated by a photon, it releases less and less light."
This leads to washed out colors. Anyone who doesn't notice this effect has to be blind because it's blatantly obvious to me and please note that I resisted getting an LCD TV for as long as possible (and bought one of the last models of large screen Sony CRTs made) so don't think I'm some kind of LCD fanboy. I'm not. However, the reminiscing over CRT is a bunch of hogwash.
Sorry but that's simply not possible. Phosphors fade over time. It's not debatable because it's a fact. (Feel free to google it.) If you haven't noticed it, it's simply because it's happened over time but I guarantee you that if you bought a brand new copy of that exact same monitor, the difference would shock you. The only way what you're saying could be true is if you have a monitor from 1993 that you rarely use, otherwise, it's just not possible. A work monitor that's used for 8 hours a day will have dramatic color loss in 5 years.
/. users, don't even know how to color calibrate their monitors.
It's also a myth that CRTs simply have better color. The truth is that photographers and graphics artists had to use high-end CRTs to get accurate color representation (just like they have to do with LCDs). The typical CRT had poor color representation and even the high-end ones required frequent recalibration to maintain color accuracy due to the fading of the phosphors.
So, I will admit that expensive, high-end CRTs (top 1% at best) have better color than LCDs, this really isn't true for the vast majority of the population. Most users, including