Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.
Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.
"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."
Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?
After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.
Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.
My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.
If it weren't the procedural flaws in the prosecution's case it would have likely been something else getting the conviction overturned. Stevens is way too wealthy and politically connected to be punished for any crime.
well, to make caffeine useful again, for example. i dring two cups of tea a day at most (no coffee at all because i don't like the taste) and when i really need a push, a cup of coffee or gyokuro is absolutely sufficient to awake me.
Exactly. I used to consume 6-10 cups of coffee worth of caffeine a day, and that was just to get me to normal. Now I have 0 caffeine on a typical day and I can very, very easily pull an all nighter on 1-2 cups. Also, I feel better when I wake up and go to sleep than I used to.
That's the argument over Jammie's $220,000 fine for 24 tracks: an uncountable number downloaded and that is an uncountable loss to the recording industry.
In that case, 1 download is 1 lost sale.
If this IS the case, then 1 unmade download is 1 gained sale.
Your comment is wrong.
Well they're actually claiming in Jammie Thomas' case that one download = 9167 lost sales.
Academically interesting formulas and algorithms with limited application and no ROI?
Which is something, while hardware AI has been around for a finite time and achieved nothing. When trying to compare the actual accomplishments of the respective AIs, my neural net gets a divide by zero error.
They just said that 20% of your paid time, doing something other than what they are paying you to do, is reasonable? Would a company paying you 20% less all of the sudden be reasonable? If you are getting paid, STFU and get the work done. If there's no work to do, clock out and go home.
Well according to this study, the people who offend you so much get more done than the people who don't.
Because there is so much money to be made by botnets these days, it has moved from a "look what I can do" feat to a real business in its own right (legality aside). It is widely assumed that Conficker is among the first of a new breed of very carefully produced viruses and worms, written by professional developers who are paid quite well for their computer security and anti-anti-virus skills.
This class of developer knows exactly how the anti-virus companies work. It should have been expected by the Conficker designers that their virus would be examined in isolated networks. The designers would therefore be able to take advantage of that (it's easy enough to detect -- no word from the master servers, no ability to further infect, etc), and that's what we saw yesterday. Planned panic for no reason. At this point, most people think Conficker is either no serious threat, or an April Fools' Day prank. These people could be very wrong.
With the pressure off, infected machines are now able to go about their intended business, which could be sending spam, using distributed computing, farming user data, coordinated attacks of one type or another, or merely a conspiracy to protect computers from infections (a virally spreading anti-virus utility that you can't detect, stop, or remove? ingenious!).
The merits of a secret anti-virus product are more down-to-earth than you might think; most high-end zombie masters write their viruses so that they can't be detected by users and so that they are the sole "pwners" of the system -- competition is bad in this field. What you end up with is zombie masters who are suddenly interested in maintaining your computer for you - virus-free (save their virus), clean, efficient. If this zombie master is your federal government, merely reserving the right to use ("draft") your system as a "minute man" for emergencies where your computing power or attacking capabilities are needed, that might be a fair "tax."
Except there's nothing particularly new, innovative, or resistant to AV in conficker. Conficker came to exist long after the vulnerability it exploits was publicly fixed. It is trivially detectable with a wide array of different techniques, and easily curable. The only thing making it effective is public ignorance about the need to update, and exploitation that flaw is very common.
Looking at a wider range of reviews, I think we can call this round a draw. That means the real winners are consumers, because the selling point will become price.
Or, if you read the most interesting review of these cards, you'll see why maybe nvidia will skip the price game this time and instead try (and fail) to sell their cards based on physx:
Now to be serious. Home PC do not come yet with 6GB or 8GB. Most new home PC still seem to have between 1GB and 4GB. Where the 4GB variety is rare because of the fact that most home PCs still come with a 32-bit operating system. 3GB seems to be the sweet spot for higher-end-home-pcs. Your home PC will most likely not have 16GB next year. Your workstation at work, perhaps, but then even perhaps.
At the risk of sounding like "640KByte is enough for everyone", I have to ask why you think why you need 16GB to check your email next year. I'm typing this on a 6 year old computer, I'm running quite a few applications at the same time and I know a second user is logged in. Current memory usage: 764Meg RAM. As a general rule, I know that Windows XP runs fine on 512Meg RAM and is comfortable with 1GB RAM. The same is true for GNU/Linux running Gnome.
Now, at work with Eclipse loaded, a couple of application servers, a database and a few VMs... Yeah, there indeed you get memory starved quickly. You have to keep in mind that such usage pattern is not that of a typical office worker. I can imagine that a heavy Photoshop user would want every bit of RAM he can get too. The Word-wielding-office-worker? I don't think so.
Now, I can't speak for Vista. I heard it runs well on 2GB systems, but I can't say. I got a new work laptop last week and booted briefly in Vista. It felt extremely sluggish and my machine does have 4Gig RAM. Anyway, I didn't bother and put Debian Lenny/amd64 on it and didn't look back.
I my idea, you have quite a twisted sense of reality regarding to the computers people actually use.
Oh, and frankly... If cosmic rays would be a big issue by now with huge memories, don't you think that more people would be complaining? I can't say why Ubuntu/amd64 ran fine on your machine. Perhaps GNU/Linux has built-in error correction and marks bad RAM as "bad".
Nice post. Just a note about Vista - expect it to feel sluggish for a dozen hours when you first start using it. It's doing its best to make a bad first impression by constantly indexing and caching data for superfetch. After a day or two it will be equivalent in responsiveness to XP.
Seriously, what is the sole purpose of Pirate Bay?
Share Linux distros or share copyrighted material?
You can yell "can be used for legal purposes" or "cannot be proven" or whatnot until your face is blue, but will not change the truth.
It turns out there's no "sole purpose" of TPB. 80% of their torrents are legal, but probably the majority of traffic is not. To some people the most important purpose of TPB is to force a showdown that might help to change unjust laws.
This is a common criticism, and it makes no sense - Wikipedia is unreliable, because your edits got reverted? If Britannica don't publish my contribution, are they unreliable too?
The joke is that on the one hand, people criticise Wikipedia because anyone could make a poor edit, but then other people criticise it because edits can get reverted. Which is it?
Let's have a link to what your edits were, please. Of course, I'm sure you thought your edit was making great improvements, but everyone would think that, including those making bad edits. And yes, I'll concede it's possible that sometimes a useful contribution is reverted, but that isn't an argument for saying that Wikipedia is unreliable - it just means that it misses out on a random piece of extra information.
Your argument is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is indeed unreliable. With experience in a field, however, it's pretty easy to distinguish between the solid, detailed entries, the entries passing soft information off as something more authoritative, and the entries with fraudulent citations and no effective peer review. Students who use wikipedia for academic papers need to follow the citations and use those, not the article itself.
First is speed, I have tried Windows 7 beta and I didn't see any speed improvement over Vista at all. (I have turned off unnecessary services and features that I don't use). Windows 7 is more secure than Vista? Vista can be pretty secure itself if the user doesn't do anything stupid + proper setting + updating regularly.
So the only thing that Win 7 seems to be better than Vista is eye candy, UI features like 'bat light' or thumbnail on the taskbar. But I think they are overated, I prefer using multi workspace as in Linux, so I can organize the windows myself, and don't have to worry about cluttering. I even removed the windows list widget on the panel and replaced it with icons box instead (only show the icon of the running programs). I'm even thinking about removing panel completely and switching to tiling WM like Xmonad so I can throw away my mouse, but until I got a 2nd monitor, that doesn't seem like a good idea.
(Yes, I have a fetish for keyboard, but hey, we have ten fingers, better use all of them)
7 is drastically faster than Vista for general OS tasks on machines with 1 gig of RAM or less. On a machine with enough RAM, Vista's already plenty fast, certainly faster than XP for these things. Vista and 7 are both slower than XP for transferring large chunks of small files around, though part of the reason for this is that XP says the move is done when the data is read into RAM even though it's still waiting to write to disk, while Vista and 7 tell you the move is done when the data is written to the new location.
Vista is more secure than 7 if you use UAC, because 7's UAC has been sadly neutered. Sure, MS may claim that UAC isn't a security barrier, but every one of the non-techies who used to get their XP boxes pwned every 3 months have now had no malware issues since switching and using UAC. MS may not want us to look closely at UAC as a security barrier, but in practice it's the most effective one I've seen on any system.
The "bat light" was from a list of features that never made it into 7. The thumbnail on the taskbar isn't a big deal, but the "peek" functionality that gives you a full size view of a window of interest is actually very useful.
I'm running an Ubuntu box, a browser up, an email package up, and instant messenger running, multiple editors open, Perforce open, open office open and am doing compiles. I am currently using 1.4 GB of RAM.
Ubuntu's probably clever enough to be using all the remaining RAM in your system for caching. I doubt it's going to waste.
Plenty of Europeans sacrificed their lives too and it's incredibly offensive to their descendants to imply that the wonderful Americans just turned up and saved us all while our ancestors just cowered in fear. I don't remember too many American pilots involved in the Battle of Britain for example. Now fuck off and stick your "OMG THE UNGRATEFUL YOOROES" up your ill-educated Yankee arse.
Many more Europeans than Americans, in fact. Also, contrary to the American non-historian's widely held view of World War I, we (the Americans) were terribly incompetent there, and basically embarrassed ourselves while being rather useless because we took awhile to accept that the Europeans knew better than we did and should be telling us what to do.
If anyone should be especially arrogant about performance in World Wars, however, it's the Canadians and Australians, who were far more effective per person than just about any other force.
Spontaneous cheers for introducing cut and paste on a handheld computer in 2009.
Those weren't cheers about the feature as much as they were cheers that those people would no longer have to spend an hour a day posting online about how copy and paste are useless on a cell phone. That'll free up a lot of time for 320x480 browsing.
Why not just put in a normal third party hd? You can do that you know...just premount it in a pc and use one of the ubiquitous online tools to prepare it.
"Hey guys, let's do everything possible to exacerbate the 'me too' image problem Linux already has!"
This campaign is probably the worst idea ever, and of course it's only coming to fruition long after the initial luster of the Apple commercials has faded and people already find them played out.
I think the original Apple commercials came to fruition at precisely the moment that their luster faded and people found them played out.
You don't need clearance from anyone to fly an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (class G - below 700 ft or below 1200 ft near uncontrolled airports).
Further, you can fly VFR in class E (pretty much everywhere except near airports, and below 18000 ft) without any clearance whatsoever. In fact, you are not required to talk to anyone at all if you don't want to.
I knew so many airline pilots who died or barely survived crashes because they thought they were too cool to use their radios in their private planes. Anyone not talking to potential local traffic or the local/regional tower is begging for death.
You've now achieved what Palm devices could do ten years ago.
That's a pretty trollish post, you get excused because this update is truly all about catch-up, without the innovation of the original iPhone software or 2.0.
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
When I went to school in New Haven I noticed the same thing. Also, locals would run a red light, speed up, and change lanes just to aim at a pedestrian a block away and get a chance of hitting him or at least scaring him.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of the hearing today focused on what transpired during an April 15, 2008, interview with the key witness, Bill Allen. During that interview, according to notes taken by two of the prosecutors, Allen said he did not recall talking to a friend of Stevens's about sending the senator a bill for work on his home, according to Sullivan.
Under oath at trial, however, Allen testified that he was told by the friend to ignore a note Stevens sent seeking a bill for the remodeling work.
"Bill, don't worry about getting a bill" for Stevens, Allen said the friend told him. "Ted is just covering his [expletive]."
Ok, so we have Ted Stevens asking for a bill on the remodeling, like he should. But it sounds like one was never received or produced. So what was Stevens convicted of?
After a month-long trial, Stevens was convicted of not reporting on Senate disclosure forms that he accepted about $250,000 in gifts and free renovations to his home in Girdwood, Alaska. Most of the gifts and free remodeling work were supplied by Bill Allen, chief executive of Veco, a now-defunct oil services company.
Ok, regardless of whether or not an invoice was ever produced, the Senate is required to report things like this on their financial disclosure forms so that under the table payments can be discovered. It still sounds like he's guilty for failing to put "I just got these bitching additions to my house from this contractor for $0." Which should spark an investigation.
My point is whether they find him guilty or not, he failed his duties as a senator. It's a shame the prosecution botched this case and withheld that evidence from the court as he's still guilty of failing to disclose this information publicly on his financial disclosure form.
If it weren't the procedural flaws in the prosecution's case it would have likely been something else getting the conviction overturned. Stevens is way too wealthy and politically connected to be punished for any crime.
well, to make caffeine useful again, for example.
i dring two cups of tea a day at most (no coffee at all because i don't like the taste) and when i really need a push, a cup of coffee or gyokuro is absolutely sufficient to awake me.
Exactly. I used to consume 6-10 cups of coffee worth of caffeine a day, and that was just to get me to normal. Now I have 0 caffeine on a typical day and I can very, very easily pull an all nighter on 1-2 cups. Also, I feel better when I wake up and go to sleep than I used to.
There's no benefit at all to caffeine addiction.
I know, I know, everything on the Internet is a commodity now. But tell me - what happens when there is no one left to produce that commodity?
Why, blog journalists, of course. Am I joking or am I serious? What would be the result of a shift of this nature? Discuss...
I've seen a lot of blog "journalists" but never a blog journalist. If they do exist, they're very well hidden.
That's the argument over Jammie's $220,000 fine for 24 tracks: an uncountable number downloaded and that is an uncountable loss to the recording industry.
In that case, 1 download is 1 lost sale.
If this IS the case, then 1 unmade download is 1 gained sale.
Your comment is wrong.
Well they're actually claiming in Jammie Thomas' case that one download = 9167 lost sales.
achieved... what?
Academically interesting formulas and algorithms with limited application and no ROI?
Which is something, while hardware AI has been around for a finite time and achieved nothing. When trying to compare the actual accomplishments of the respective AIs, my neural net gets a divide by zero error.
They just said that 20% of your paid time, doing something other than what they are paying you to do, is reasonable? Would a company paying you 20% less all of the sudden be reasonable? If you are getting paid, STFU and get the work done. If there's no work to do, clock out and go home.
Well according to this study, the people who offend you so much get more done than the people who don't.
Because there is so much money to be made by botnets these days, it has moved from a "look what I can do" feat to a real business in its own right (legality aside). It is widely assumed that Conficker is among the first of a new breed of very carefully produced viruses and worms, written by professional developers who are paid quite well for their computer security and anti-anti-virus skills.
This class of developer knows exactly how the anti-virus companies work. It should have been expected by the Conficker designers that their virus would be examined in isolated networks. The designers would therefore be able to take advantage of that (it's easy enough to detect -- no word from the master servers, no ability to further infect, etc), and that's what we saw yesterday. Planned panic for no reason. At this point, most people think Conficker is either no serious threat, or an April Fools' Day prank. These people could be very wrong.
With the pressure off, infected machines are now able to go about their intended business, which could be sending spam, using distributed computing, farming user data, coordinated attacks of one type or another, or merely a conspiracy to protect computers from infections (a virally spreading anti-virus utility that you can't detect, stop, or remove? ingenious!).
The merits of a secret anti-virus product are more down-to-earth than you might think; most high-end zombie masters write their viruses so that they can't be detected by users and so that they are the sole "pwners" of the system -- competition is bad in this field. What you end up with is zombie masters who are suddenly interested in maintaining your computer for you - virus-free (save their virus), clean, efficient. If this zombie master is your federal government, merely reserving the right to use ("draft") your system as a "minute man" for emergencies where your computing power or attacking capabilities are needed, that might be a fair "tax."
Except there's nothing particularly new, innovative, or resistant to AV in conficker. Conficker came to exist long after the vulnerability it exploits was publicly fixed. It is trivially detectable with a wide array of different techniques, and easily curable. The only thing making it effective is public ignorance about the need to update, and exploitation that flaw is very common.
Looking at a wider range of reviews, I think we can call this round a draw. That means the real winners are consumers, because the selling point will become price.
Or, if you read the most interesting review of these cards, you'll see why maybe nvidia will skip the price game this time and instead try (and fail) to sell their cards based on physx:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539
Maybe? There really should be an achievement for this.
There should be an automatic ban for anyone who posts "First" or "First Post" or any variation thereof.
The Proud, the Few: Complete a 250 word comment using fewer than 21 unique characters.
The Invincible: Read /. all day without dying.
Make Him Watch!: Defeat Commander Taco without first slaying KDawson.
Justice: Slay KDawson using only Microsoft equipment.
Reckless Judgment: Use 15 mod points in fewer than 6 minutes.
Commuter Boredom: Post on /. from work, from home, and from public transportation.
1) Yes
2) No
Now to be serious. Home PC do not come yet with 6GB or 8GB. Most new home PC still seem to have between 1GB and 4GB. Where the 4GB variety is rare because of the fact that most home PCs still come with a 32-bit operating system. 3GB seems to be the sweet spot for higher-end-home-pcs. Your home PC will most likely not have 16GB next year. Your workstation at work, perhaps, but then even perhaps.
At the risk of sounding like "640KByte is enough for everyone", I have to ask why you think why you need 16GB to check your email next year. I'm typing this on a 6 year old computer, I'm running quite a few applications at the same time and I know a second user is logged in. Current memory usage: 764Meg RAM. As a general rule, I know that Windows XP runs fine on 512Meg RAM and is comfortable with 1GB RAM. The same is true for GNU/Linux running Gnome.
Now, at work with Eclipse loaded, a couple of application servers, a database and a few VMs... Yeah, there indeed you get memory starved quickly. You have to keep in mind that such usage pattern is not that of a typical office worker. I can imagine that a heavy Photoshop user would want every bit of RAM he can get too. The Word-wielding-office-worker? I don't think so.
Now, I can't speak for Vista. I heard it runs well on 2GB systems, but I can't say. I got a new work laptop last week and booted briefly in Vista. It felt extremely sluggish and my machine does have 4Gig RAM. Anyway, I didn't bother and put Debian Lenny/amd64 on it and didn't look back.
I my idea, you have quite a twisted sense of reality regarding to the computers people actually use.
Oh, and frankly... If cosmic rays would be a big issue by now with huge memories, don't you think that more people would be complaining? I can't say why Ubuntu/amd64 ran fine on your machine. Perhaps GNU/Linux has built-in error correction and marks bad RAM as "bad".
Nice post. Just a note about Vista - expect it to feel sluggish for a dozen hours when you first start using it. It's doing its best to make a bad first impression by constantly indexing and caching data for superfetch. After a day or two it will be equivalent in responsiveness to XP.
Seriously, what is the sole purpose of Pirate Bay?
Share Linux distros or share copyrighted material?
You can yell "can be used for legal purposes" or "cannot be proven" or whatnot until your face is blue, but will not change the truth.
It turns out there's no "sole purpose" of TPB. 80% of their torrents are legal, but probably the majority of traffic is not. To some people the most important purpose of TPB is to force a showdown that might help to change unjust laws.
This is a common criticism, and it makes no sense - Wikipedia is unreliable, because your edits got reverted? If Britannica don't publish my contribution, are they unreliable too?
The joke is that on the one hand, people criticise Wikipedia because anyone could make a poor edit, but then other people criticise it because edits can get reverted. Which is it?
Let's have a link to what your edits were, please. Of course, I'm sure you thought your edit was making great improvements, but everyone would think that, including those making bad edits. And yes, I'll concede it's possible that sometimes a useful contribution is reverted, but that isn't an argument for saying that Wikipedia is unreliable - it just means that it misses out on a random piece of extra information.
Your argument is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is indeed unreliable. With experience in a field, however, it's pretty easy to distinguish between the solid, detailed entries, the entries passing soft information off as something more authoritative, and the entries with fraudulent citations and no effective peer review. Students who use wikipedia for academic papers need to follow the citations and use those, not the article itself.
... over Vista?
First is speed, I have tried Windows 7 beta and I didn't see any speed improvement over Vista at all. (I have turned off unnecessary services and features that I don't use). Windows 7 is more secure than Vista? Vista can be pretty secure itself if the user doesn't do anything stupid + proper setting + updating regularly.
So the only thing that Win 7 seems to be better than Vista is eye candy, UI features like 'bat light' or thumbnail on the taskbar. But I think they are overated, I prefer using multi workspace as in Linux, so I can organize the windows myself, and don't have to worry about cluttering. I even removed the windows list widget on the panel and replaced it with icons box instead (only show the icon of the running programs). I'm even thinking about removing panel completely and switching to tiling WM like Xmonad so I can throw away my mouse, but until I got a 2nd monitor, that doesn't seem like a good idea.
(Yes, I have a fetish for keyboard, but hey, we have ten fingers, better use all of them)
7 is drastically faster than Vista for general OS tasks on machines with 1 gig of RAM or less. On a machine with enough RAM, Vista's already plenty fast, certainly faster than XP for these things. Vista and 7 are both slower than XP for transferring large chunks of small files around, though part of the reason for this is that XP says the move is done when the data is read into RAM even though it's still waiting to write to disk, while Vista and 7 tell you the move is done when the data is written to the new location.
Vista is more secure than 7 if you use UAC, because 7's UAC has been sadly neutered. Sure, MS may claim that UAC isn't a security barrier, but every one of the non-techies who used to get their XP boxes pwned every 3 months have now had no malware issues since switching and using UAC. MS may not want us to look closely at UAC as a security barrier, but in practice it's the most effective one I've seen on any system.
The "bat light" was from a list of features that never made it into 7. The thumbnail on the taskbar isn't a big deal, but the "peek" functionality that gives you a full size view of a window of interest is actually very useful.
I'm running an Ubuntu box, a browser up, an email package up, and instant messenger running, multiple editors open, Perforce open, open office open and am doing compiles. I am currently using 1.4 GB of RAM.
Ubuntu's probably clever enough to be using all the remaining RAM in your system for caching. I doubt it's going to waste.
Plenty of Europeans sacrificed their lives too and it's incredibly offensive to their descendants to imply that the wonderful Americans just turned up and saved us all while our ancestors just cowered in fear. I don't remember too many American pilots involved in the Battle of Britain for example. Now fuck off and stick your "OMG THE UNGRATEFUL YOOROES" up your ill-educated Yankee arse.
Many more Europeans than Americans, in fact. Also, contrary to the American non-historian's widely held view of World War I, we (the Americans) were terribly incompetent there, and basically embarrassed ourselves while being rather useless because we took awhile to accept that the Europeans knew better than we did and should be telling us what to do.
If anyone should be especially arrogant about performance in World Wars, however, it's the Canadians and Australians, who were far more effective per person than just about any other force.
The first words out of it were: "They misunderestimated me."
Why programmed it with W's vocabulary?
Spontaneous cheers for introducing cut and paste on a handheld computer in 2009.
Those weren't cheers about the feature as much as they were cheers that those people would no longer have to spend an hour a day posting online about how copy and paste are useless on a cell phone. That'll free up a lot of time for 320x480 browsing.
You know the duty free sales magazine in the back of every airline seat? This summary sounds like something out of it.
Google's Amazing Browser Experiments!
The World's Finest Robot Dog Bed!
The Perfect Toothbrush - That Can Think!
Sweden's Softest Bathrobes!
including letting them run for hours and hours upon end running the Folding At Home client without shutting them off for days at a time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home#PlayStation_3
Wow, that's dedication. At my rather normal rates for electricity, that's $175/(console*year) for electricity to run F@H. Kudos.
Why not just put in a normal third party hd? You can do that you know...just premount it in a pc and use one of the ubiquitous online tools to prepare it.
"Hey guys, let's do everything possible to exacerbate the 'me too' image problem Linux already has!"
This campaign is probably the worst idea ever, and of course it's only coming to fruition long after the initial luster of the Apple commercials has faded and people already find them played out.
I think the original Apple commercials came to fruition at precisely the moment that their luster faded and people found them played out.
You don't need clearance from anyone to fly an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (class G - below 700 ft or below 1200 ft near uncontrolled airports).
Further, you can fly VFR in class E (pretty much everywhere except near airports, and below 18000 ft) without any clearance whatsoever. In fact, you are not required to talk to anyone at all if you don't want to.
I knew so many airline pilots who died or barely survived crashes because they thought they were too cool to use their radios in their private planes. Anyone not talking to potential local traffic or the local/regional tower is begging for death.
You've now achieved what Palm devices could do ten years ago.
That's a pretty trollish post, you get excused because this update is truly all about catch-up, without the innovation of the original iPhone software or 2.0.
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
When I went to school in New Haven I noticed the same thing. Also, locals would run a red light, speed up, and change lanes just to aim at a pedestrian a block away and get a chance of hitting him or at least scaring him.