I personally wonder who was the first one to prepare and eat tofu (doesn't seem like an obvious process). Or century eggs. Go check out some of the other chinese foods;)...
Maybe young guys and lots of alcohol were involved in the creation of such foods:).
Maybe not that poisonous to us but it is poisonous to other animals - slugs, snails, frogs etc.
BTW: other stuff that's relatively harmless to us but poisonous to other animals: chocolate for dogs, aspirin for cats, and the fumes from teflon frying pans for many types of birds.
(acetaminophen/paracetamol/tylenol is very toxic for cats, but IMO I wouldn't say it's harmless to humans).
Nope, but I heard rumours that the US Gov hired Primakov and Markus Wolf sometime ago.
If that is true you may be in the USSA soon;).
I mean just take a close look at the recent laws introduced (Patriot Act etc) and stuff the US Gov is doing (ignore what they claim to be doing and actually check what they are doing).
Well I think you guys should start worrying about the likely or actual existing problems[0] rather than worry about someone shooting nukes at you.
It'll be totally stupid to shoot stuff at the US. If leaders of my country ever even publicly talk about that, I would give medals to the first person to kill them. Which is why practically _nobody_ outside of the US and UK thought that Saddam would shoot stuff at US/UK despite what Bush or Blair said. "Minutes away etc", WMD, all bullshit.
Anyway, if you only had one nuke and you wanted to hurt the US real bad, there are other options to sneaking nukes into the US (even though it shouldn't be too difficult[1]). You could sneak the nukes into some other country and nuke a sensitive target[2], and make it look like the US did it.
After all if the US is stupid enough to have nuked Iraq, the irrational people (the target audience) wouldn't find it hard enough to believe the US was responsible for nuking some other sensitive target[2] soon after.
BTW just poisoning the water supplies could be easier to do, especially if you have suicidal volunteers.
[0] The US is willing to spend billions to select the leaders of Iraq, but somehow can't find the resources to get a decent voting system to pick its own leaders (the leaders of arguably the most powerful nation in the world). Perhaps the voting system is already working well for the leaders, but is it working well for the sheeple? The US Gov has lied so much about the Iraq war and billions have gone "missing" (search: iraq billions audit)... All sorts of dubious US laws are being created. There's so much important stuff you guys should worry and do more about, but I suppose your media doesn't help. I mean why is some drug company being sued for USD200+million just because some guy might have died because of a drug, when nobody seems to be that worried whether millions of people could have been affected by mercury in vaccines. Maybe all that mercury made too many US citizens stupid;)...
[1] Tons of drugs and immigrants get through the US borders all the time.
[2] If you can't figure out what targets I might be referring to, I'm sure not going to tell you.
The hunter-gatherer lifestyle won't support modern hospitals etc. And hospitals are a good thing.
I think a lot more babies AND their mothers died in childbirth in the old days. That brings lifespans down a lot.
I'm sure back then lots of teenage boys/young men got themselves killed too, with injuries would be typically nonfatal given modern medical treatment.
The other trouble with the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is you often have little or ZERO reserves. A few bad days, or get injured/sick and be unable to hunt/gather and you could be in trouble. I suppose that's where friends/relatives/tribe members help a lot.
Whereas nowadays given the modern "ecosystem of agriculture, hypermarkets, banks etc", individuals can store up a fair amount of useable reserves.
That said, I think most countries don't have more than a few weeks of oil and other critical reserves.
Seems if you want opteron servers from say IBM/HP/Sun, you can only get blades or rack mounted ones, not tower models.
Rack or 1U servers are more popular with large corps (those with datacenters, lots of racks etc). And many large corps are more brand/marketing sensitive.
Just wondering why I can't seem to find tower opterons from any of the big names. Would be nice to have a server that you can stick lots of SCSI drives into, without having to resort to expensive SAN stuff.
BTW just curious: what's the max throughput your SAN can provide?
"User reinstalls, forgets to back up, loses all their baby photos!" Hilarious. Not"
Furthermore, why should one assume that a user knows they must backup when reinstalling? On some O/S installs the old data is retained.
Anyone familiar with PC stuff who tells a typical user to just reformat and reinstall WITHOUT telling/showing them how to backup their data (or ensure their data survives) is irresponsible (or even an asshole).
One of my companies had a sysadmin who told a user to backup his data. The user backed up the _shortcuts_ to the data. The sysadmin asked the user "are you sure?". The user said "Yes". This "confirmation" went a few rounds, but end result was user ended up with just shortcuts, after sysadmin did stuff...
When said sysadmin recounted the story, I told the sysadmin he was evil for doing that. After all, he knew what was likely to happen.
Most of the 10 cases in the article are boring. Except maybe the one about the airplane rolling over the laptop...
It is easier to search for it, and refer to it, and if it is a well used and useful term, it often gets a fairly _precise_ and standard meaning.
There are good reasons why scientists/doctors etc make new terms that aren't in plain common english, even if it seems pretentious.
When people in their group use a special term, it is a lot less ambiguous what they are talking about.
When someone says "ventricular fibrillation" it is quite a specific term for "the heart is beating fast in an unsynchronized way that is not effective in pumping blood".
When someone calls something a dog, or canine. it's not just any furry mammal.
Your self-explanatory terms aren't precise enough. Just playing any 3D game would be "realtime 3D", but playing a 3D game does not make something machinima. I have little idea of what you mean by "in game".
When someone says machinima, you know it's not just any "realtime 3D". It is a particular type of "realtime 3D".
I dislike people changing the meanings of perfectly good words and using them to mean something else, when they already have existing words or could come up with new ones.
It's only useful if this is integrated with the rest of the graphic systems (GPU, CPU, memory etc).
Otherwise, if your display is capable of drawing an entire screen over and over at the required refresh rates, I don't see a real benefit. Maybe there's some benefit in the power consumption/EMI/"tempest" areas, but that's a bit silly.
If a display is not capable of drawing an entire screen at the desired refresh rates, then I wouldn't want to buy it.
OK even if the display can display stuff faster by just doing the differences it still needs to be integrated otherwise your graphics controller and gang will still assume a fixed refresh rate and behave accordingly. e.g. no point for the display to draw your small changes at 200fps, when the graphics card is only sending the changes at 100fps just because that's the minimum guaranteed rate of the display.
The level of integration required would make things complex and bug-prone. It'll be like moving your graphics card to the display and having the display's GPU write changes to the display's screen memory, and having Open GL and Direct X talk to the display through the interface. Thanks but no thanks - I want my monitors a lot more reliable than that...
For CRTs based displays, it is even worse - firstly, you are eventually going to have to send the electron beam everywhere to refresh the entire image. Secondly, how many times the electron beam hits a phosphor a second does affect how bright it appears. So doing part of the screen for the CRT sometimes and do the whole screen at other times and making it look seamless is going to be more difficult.
Casino chips are one way to carry and transfer lots of money.
Thing is with RFID is casino chips are no longer going to be as anonymous as they used to be. You'll know that a particular bunch of USD1 million in chips has been passed from one person to someone else.
I wonder whether there's more behind this story than just catching cheats.
But what's so good about having a currency backed by gold? Why are so many people so fixated about that?
A currency controlled by a central bank that can actually be trusted is better than one backed by gold.
You can have a gold backed currency but a screwed up economy. Lots of countries in the old days had currencies based on gold - and there still was inflation (esp when they got lots of gold from the Americas).
Gold can be "created" (mined) by 3rd parties beyond a country's control. You can't eat gold either. Which brings us to the next point.
The value of gold is not fixed either. If I'm the only one who has food and you are very hungry and have no food but lots of gold, my food can be worth a lot of gold to you.
Just because its gold doesn't mean it automatically has some high (or even "magical") value. It has as much right to value as any other commodity or currency, and no more - it's valuable as long as enough people think it is valuable.
Sure because of that, you could say that gold can have a high value because lots of people have a near-irrational belief in the high value of gold. However to buy lots of gold based on that is like buying lots of tech shares before the bubble burst.
Before you buy/sell lots of gold check carefully to see whether gold is over or under valued.
My guess is CVTs are unlikely to become standard. Because in the near future, most cars that are driven with electric motors are likely to only require one gear ratio.
People talk about diesel cars being more efficient than hybrid petrol cars. Well, maybe they should start using diesel for hybrid cars. It's proven tech - it's already been done for years with trains. After that maybe there would be hydrocarbon fuel-cells (unless someone figures out some sort of "desktop" cold-fusion type of tech).
Might be better if say the whole of Congress votes with > 75% majority, then the law has a longer lifespan.
Whereas if it's 51%, it has a shorter lifespan. Similarly if it's a lesser law making body then shorter lifespan.
Another proposal I'd make would be: while a top leader (or entity - depends on country) might have the authority to defend a country against an ongoing attack, the said leader/entity cannot initiate an attack without a referendum AND if the referendum fails to achieve sufficient majority (66%), the lives of the leader/members of the entity are forfeit, and there has to be another "redemption" referendum to see if the citizens still want those leaders alive.
To me it's only fair if a leader is willing to sacrifice his/her people's lives AND lives of the target country (not just soldiers - but civilians), then that leader should also be willing to put his/her life on the line as well.
Though someone told me a referendum would be good enough, I still think that is NOT enough for something as serious as war.
For one it might satisfy the dissenters more - those who voted against war, but failed. Then at least they know their leaders put their own lives on the line too.
Nonconstitutional laws should automatically have limited lifespans, so even if you need more lawyers to keep renewing them, the odds are higher that at least some of the stupid laws will expire.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you could get your fedora core release from here.
;)
Site seems quite slow though. Wonder who's using all the bandwidth at that site. Maybe slashdotters downloading the latest iso's...
Or maybe it's to disguise the taste of the water?
;) ).
I find some boiled water to taste erm not as nice (probably depends on the kettle and what year it is
I personally prefer drinking RO or distilled water.
Acorns aren't toxic are they?
;)...
:).
I personally wonder who was the first one to prepare and eat tofu (doesn't seem like an obvious process). Or century eggs. Go check out some of the other chinese foods
Maybe young guys and lots of alcohol were involved in the creation of such foods
Maybe not that poisonous to us but it is poisonous to other animals - slugs, snails, frogs etc.
BTW: other stuff that's relatively harmless to us but poisonous to other animals: chocolate for dogs, aspirin for cats, and the fumes from teflon frying pans for many types of birds.
(acetaminophen/paracetamol/tylenol is very toxic for cats, but IMO I wouldn't say it's harmless to humans).
Nope, but I heard rumours that the US Gov hired Primakov and Markus Wolf sometime ago.
;).
If that is true you may be in the USSA soon
I mean just take a close look at the recent laws introduced (Patriot Act etc) and stuff the US Gov is doing (ignore what they claim to be doing and actually check what they are doing).
Well I think you guys should start worrying about the likely or actual existing problems[0] rather than worry about someone shooting nukes at you.
;)...
It'll be totally stupid to shoot stuff at the US. If leaders of my country ever even publicly talk about that, I would give medals to the first person to kill them. Which is why practically _nobody_ outside of the US and UK thought that Saddam would shoot stuff at US/UK despite what Bush or Blair said. "Minutes away etc", WMD, all bullshit.
Anyway, if you only had one nuke and you wanted to hurt the US real bad, there are other options to sneaking nukes into the US (even though it shouldn't be too difficult[1]). You could sneak the nukes into some other country and nuke a sensitive target[2], and make it look like the US did it.
After all if the US is stupid enough to have nuked Iraq, the irrational people (the target audience) wouldn't find it hard enough to believe the US was responsible for nuking some other sensitive target[2] soon after.
BTW just poisoning the water supplies could be easier to do, especially if you have suicidal volunteers.
[0] The US is willing to spend billions to select the leaders of Iraq, but somehow can't find the resources to get a decent voting system to pick its own leaders (the leaders of arguably the most powerful nation in the world). Perhaps the voting system is already working well for the leaders, but is it working well for the sheeple? The US Gov has lied so much about the Iraq war and billions have gone "missing" (search: iraq billions audit)... All sorts of dubious US laws are being created. There's so much important stuff you guys should worry and do more about, but I suppose your media doesn't help. I mean why is some drug company being sued for USD200+million just because some guy might have died because of a drug, when nobody seems to be that worried whether millions of people could have been affected by mercury in vaccines. Maybe all that mercury made too many US citizens stupid
[1] Tons of drugs and immigrants get through the US borders all the time.
[2] If you can't figure out what targets I might be referring to, I'm sure not going to tell you.
The hunter-gatherer lifestyle won't support modern hospitals etc. And hospitals are a good thing.
I think a lot more babies AND their mothers died in childbirth in the old days. That brings lifespans down a lot.
I'm sure back then lots of teenage boys/young men got themselves killed too, with injuries would be typically nonfatal given modern medical treatment.
The other trouble with the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is you often have little or ZERO reserves. A few bad days, or get injured/sick and be unable to hunt/gather and you could be in trouble. I suppose that's where friends/relatives/tribe members help a lot.
Whereas nowadays given the modern "ecosystem of agriculture, hypermarkets, banks etc", individuals can store up a fair amount of useable reserves.
That said, I think most countries don't have more than a few weeks of oil and other critical reserves.
Seems if you want opteron servers from say IBM/HP/Sun, you can only get blades or rack mounted ones, not tower models.
Rack or 1U servers are more popular with large corps (those with datacenters, lots of racks etc). And many large corps are more brand/marketing sensitive.
Just wondering why I can't seem to find tower opterons from any of the big names. Would be nice to have a server that you can stick lots of SCSI drives into, without having to resort to expensive SAN stuff.
BTW just curious: what's the max throughput your SAN can provide?
"Hey! What have you got against fake boobs?"
;).
Maybe it's because he's never been against any...
"User reinstalls, forgets to back up, loses all their baby photos!" Hilarious. Not"
Furthermore, why should one assume that a user knows they must backup when reinstalling? On some O/S installs the old data is retained.
Anyone familiar with PC stuff who tells a typical user to just reformat and reinstall WITHOUT telling/showing them how to backup their data (or ensure their data survives) is irresponsible (or even an asshole).
One of my companies had a sysadmin who told a user to backup his data. The user backed up the _shortcuts_ to the data. The sysadmin asked the user "are you sure?". The user said "Yes". This "confirmation" went a few rounds, but end result was user ended up with just shortcuts, after sysadmin did stuff...
When said sysadmin recounted the story, I told the sysadmin he was evil for doing that. After all, he knew what was likely to happen.
Most of the 10 cases in the article are boring. Except maybe the one about the airplane rolling over the laptop...
Creating new term for something has advantages.
;)
It is easier to search for it, and refer to it, and if it is a well used and useful term, it often gets a fairly _precise_ and standard meaning.
There are good reasons why scientists/doctors etc make new terms that aren't in plain common english, even if it seems pretentious.
When people in their group use a special term, it is a lot less ambiguous what they are talking about.
When someone says "ventricular fibrillation" it is quite a specific term for "the heart is beating fast in an unsynchronized way that is not effective in pumping blood".
When someone calls something a dog, or canine. it's not just any furry mammal.
Your self-explanatory terms aren't precise enough. Just playing any 3D game would be "realtime 3D", but playing a 3D game does not make something machinima. I have little idea of what you mean by "in game".
When someone says machinima, you know it's not just any "realtime 3D". It is a particular type of "realtime 3D".
I dislike people changing the meanings of perfectly good words and using them to mean something else, when they already have existing words or could come up with new ones.
I think that's gay.
It's only useful if this is integrated with the rest of the graphic systems (GPU, CPU, memory etc).
Otherwise, if your display is capable of drawing an entire screen over and over at the required refresh rates, I don't see a real benefit. Maybe there's some benefit in the power consumption/EMI/"tempest" areas, but that's a bit silly.
If a display is not capable of drawing an entire screen at the desired refresh rates, then I wouldn't want to buy it.
OK even if the display can display stuff faster by just doing the differences it still needs to be integrated otherwise your graphics controller and gang will still assume a fixed refresh rate and behave accordingly. e.g. no point for the display to draw your small changes at 200fps, when the graphics card is only sending the changes at 100fps just because that's the minimum guaranteed rate of the display.
The level of integration required would make things complex and bug-prone. It'll be like moving your graphics card to the display and having the display's GPU write changes to the display's screen memory, and having Open GL and Direct X talk to the display through the interface. Thanks but no thanks - I want my monitors a lot more reliable than that...
For CRTs based displays, it is even worse - firstly, you are eventually going to have to send the electron beam everywhere to refresh the entire image. Secondly, how many times the electron beam hits a phosphor a second does affect how bright it appears. So doing part of the screen for the CRT sometimes and do the whole screen at other times and making it look seamless is going to be more difficult.
Casino chips are one way to carry and transfer lots of money.
Thing is with RFID is casino chips are no longer going to be as anonymous as they used to be. You'll know that a particular bunch of USD1 million in chips has been passed from one person to someone else.
I wonder whether there's more behind this story than just catching cheats.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7772
Not sure how she would get a prescription though... Or whether its such a good idea.
Their rights to such stuff should stop at trademarks.
There are already problems as is with trademarks but they are not big problems so far.
Allowing a government to restrict usage of words to make some org happy is as bad as a government banning words just because...
I'd find it amazing if the British public and newspapers put up with this.
But what's so good about having a currency backed by gold? Why are so many people so fixated about that?
A currency controlled by a central bank that can actually be trusted is better than one backed by gold.
You can have a gold backed currency but a screwed up economy. Lots of countries in the old days had currencies based on gold - and there still was inflation (esp when they got lots of gold from the Americas).
Gold can be "created" (mined) by 3rd parties beyond a country's control. You can't eat gold either. Which brings us to the next point.
The value of gold is not fixed either. If I'm the only one who has food and you are very hungry and have no food but lots of gold, my food can be worth a lot of gold to you.
Just because its gold doesn't mean it automatically has some high (or even "magical") value. It has as much right to value as any other commodity or currency, and no more - it's valuable as long as enough people think it is valuable.
Sure because of that, you could say that gold can have a high value because lots of people have a near-irrational belief in the high value of gold. However to buy lots of gold based on that is like buying lots of tech shares before the bubble burst.
Before you buy/sell lots of gold check carefully to see whether gold is over or under valued.
My guess is CVTs are unlikely to become standard. Because in the near future, most cars that are driven with electric motors are likely to only require one gear ratio.
People talk about diesel cars being more efficient than hybrid petrol cars. Well, maybe they should start using diesel for hybrid cars. It's proven tech - it's already been done for years with trains. After that maybe there would be hydrocarbon fuel-cells (unless someone figures out some sort of "desktop" cold-fusion type of tech).
He was using super pi.
1 815&page=3
t 5459.html
Some stats: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=
http://www.planetamd64.com/lofiversion/index.php/
I'm not sure about fastpi. But pifast appears to allow 2-4GHz computers to do 10 million digits of pi in about 30 seconds.
But then why were you running it for a week when it was "still finding errors"?
I don't know about you, but even if memtest just detects one error that is enough for me to start working towards getting the RAM replaced.
"MemTest86 goes bonkers on it, I left it on for a week once and it still was finding errors in my RAM"
Wow. A classic.
It's called memtest86 not memfix86, fixing your RAM is not one of its features, even if you run it for a month.
Might be better if say the whole of Congress votes with > 75% majority, then the law has a longer lifespan.
Whereas if it's 51%, it has a shorter lifespan. Similarly if it's a lesser law making body then shorter lifespan.
Another proposal I'd make would be: while a top leader (or entity - depends on country) might have the authority to defend a country against an ongoing attack, the said leader/entity cannot initiate an attack without a referendum AND if the referendum fails to achieve sufficient majority (66%), the lives of the leader/members of the entity are forfeit, and there has to be another "redemption" referendum to see if the citizens still want those leaders alive.
To me it's only fair if a leader is willing to sacrifice his/her people's lives AND lives of the target country (not just soldiers - but civilians), then that leader should also be willing to put his/her life on the line as well.
Though someone told me a referendum would be good enough, I still think that is NOT enough for something as serious as war.
For one it might satisfy the dissenters more - those who voted against war, but failed. Then at least they know their leaders put their own lives on the line too.
While it's not suitable for the typical Foxnews devotee, what's wrong with that statement?
That statement isn't dense[1]. However seems like most people are.
[1] Whether in positive or negative information.
Link please.
Only see the junk stats - which indicate the ex USSR as number 1, followed by USA.
You missed my point: if laws automatically had limited lifespans, they'd go away after a while.
People actually will need to do something to keep laws alive.
If there are too many laws to keep renewing, there are probably too many laws for citizens to keep/obey.
Nonconstitutional laws should automatically have limited lifespans, so even if you need more lawyers to keep renewing them, the odds are higher that at least some of the stupid laws will expire.