That depends on what you consider "fine". Artificial sweeteners have been shown to have a more obesity-causing effect in lab rats than sugar (due to their disruption of hunger, metabolism, etc), so diet drinks are probably not even "diet" drinks. I haven't heard of such an experiment performed on humans yet but I wouldn't take my chances.
You young guys take note: When you hate someone for having what you do not, you bring curses upon your own head. The classical Greek dramatists pointed this out and it's no less true today.
Unless they're the ones who are responsible for taking it away from you:D
When exactly did video processors become obsolete? It's obvious that if you have a new CPU and an old GPU that the GPU isn't going to help much, but otherwise it seems that GPUs of the time were always faster than CPUs, starting with Voodoo's.
So then what? Enter the SUV. It falls under the "truck" standards, so it doesn't need to meet as stringent requirements. It seats more than four people, which is important for some people, and it can do things like move furniture. It also doesn't drive like a beached whale.
It shouldn't fall under the "truck" standards. There should only be 2 vehicle categories for fuel standards - personal for personal use and commercial for government and business use.
The fact is that small cars are unsafe no matter how many airbags you stick in them, by the sheer fact that they are small. Large cars aren't automatically safe, but small cars automatically are not. When people start talking about fuel efficiency, everyone seems to forget about how dangerous being on the road is - it's the #1 cause of the death for young people like me. I for one am never getting a compact or subcompact sized car - probably going stick to a nice, mid-size, safe car.
Anyway, I disagree with this sort of ham handed management of fuel economy. Push the gas tax through the roof, and we customers will roast manufacturers who don't give us good fuel economy. We ought to bump the gas tax in the US up by 10 cents per gallon every month until we've added at least $1, then index it to inflation so it doesn't erode away like it has. No need for government fuel economy mandates. Make fuel economy worth having, and let the market figure out the details.
This kind of policy would strongly penalize people who commute to work. There's no decent public transportation, and while the market builds one, ordinary people are really going to be taking it hard.
I really wish sites would specify which kind they are. A secure individual who doesn't know is inclined to give some nonsensical information for the secret answers.
I cannot help but wonder if the only difference between us now, and Nazi Germany pre 1939 is solely hindsight.
We're not explicitly discriminating against particular groups quite to the same extent. Though what is explicit versus what is implicit might not matter that much in the long run..
I'm just always baffled by complaints that Vista doesn't run as fast as on an older machine with much smaller specs than it does on a new one. That seems fairly obvious to me.:-P
Back when Vista first came out, machines with 512 MB of RAM were sold with Vista. So it's not just older computers. Many people didn't realize 512 MB wasn't enough, and got upset that their computers ran slowly out of the box.
--
I have always maintained that the best way to future-proof a machine is to put as much RAM as you can afford/it can hold when you buy it. Very few applications have ever really needed more CPU speed, but not enough memory is going to slow your machine to a crawl.
That used to be true a few years ago, but probably not anymore, for some people. Flash-based online video eats up both CPU usage and RAM in large amounts.
Maybe Vista is not slow anymore on newer machines with nice specs, but Windows 7 is still faster.:) You like Vista, but would you still pick it over Windows 7 if you didn't have a decent computer and were buying one when Windows 7 already came out?
Eventually, people will need more than 3 GB of RAM. At that point, the choice will be between XP x64, Vista, and Windows 7 if they want to stick with M$ Operating Systems. XP x64 has compatibility issues; Vista is slow. Take a guess at what they are going to pick.
"fast enough" has been achieved. speed is only the concern now of a small minority of power users
Vista was not "fast enough", due to being marketed for laptops with 512 MB RAM that couldn't handle it. Windows 7 is "fast enough", due to 3 years of improving hardware, even if it wasn't any faster than Vista. I'm betting Vista could have done very well if it was released this year or even last year, and only on systems with 2+ GB RAM.
Windows XP got slightly more bloated with every service pack and security update. We're comparing Windows 7 with XP SP3, not the original XP. In other words we're not really comparing an 8 year old OS.
Nukes aren't everything. Russia has about as many nukes, and doesn't go around imposing on other countries quite as much as the United States. Yes, I know about the fiasco with Georgia, but that's nothing in comparison to what United States does.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on what you consider "fine". Artificial sweeteners have been shown to have a more obesity-causing effect in lab rats than sugar (due to their disruption of hunger, metabolism, etc), so diet drinks are probably not even "diet" drinks. I haven't heard of such an experiment performed on humans yet but I wouldn't take my chances.
Why are the centimeters cubic if there are 5 dimensions? Wouldn't it be quintic centimeters or something?
You young guys take note: When you hate someone for having what you do not, you bring curses upon your own head. The classical Greek dramatists pointed this out and it's no less true today.
Unless they're the ones who are responsible for taking it away from you :D
When exactly did video processors become obsolete? It's obvious that if you have a new CPU and an old GPU that the GPU isn't going to help much, but otherwise it seems that GPUs of the time were always faster than CPUs, starting with Voodoo's.
The standards apply to the manufacturers, not the people who use the cars.
So then what? Enter the SUV. It falls under the "truck" standards, so it doesn't need to meet as stringent requirements. It seats more than four people, which is important for some people, and it can do things like move furniture. It also doesn't drive like a beached whale.
It shouldn't fall under the "truck" standards. There should only be 2 vehicle categories for fuel standards - personal for personal use and commercial for government and business use.
The fact is that small cars are unsafe no matter how many airbags you stick in them, by the sheer fact that they are small. Large cars aren't automatically safe, but small cars automatically are not. When people start talking about fuel efficiency, everyone seems to forget about how dangerous being on the road is - it's the #1 cause of the death for young people like me. I for one am never getting a compact or subcompact sized car - probably going stick to a nice, mid-size, safe car.
Anyway, I disagree with this sort of ham handed management of fuel economy. Push the gas tax through the roof, and we customers will roast manufacturers who don't give us good fuel economy. We ought to bump the gas tax in the US up by 10 cents per gallon every month until we've added at least $1, then index it to inflation so it doesn't erode away like it has. No need for government fuel economy mandates. Make fuel economy worth having, and let the market figure out the details.
This kind of policy would strongly penalize people who commute to work. There's no decent public transportation, and while the market builds one, ordinary people are really going to be taking it hard.
I really wish sites would specify which kind they are. A secure individual who doesn't know is inclined to give some nonsensical information for the secret answers.
This is pretty much the only reason I use Chrome rather than Firefox - Chrome freezes less often when something in it acts slow.
The only reason someone would spoof their caller id is if they are up to no good.
And the only reason someone would spoof their IP address on the internet is if they are up to no good, right?
Who modded this guy up??
They've been around for a long time - they're called integrated graphics.
I cannot help but wonder if the only difference between us now, and Nazi Germany pre 1939 is solely hindsight.
We're not explicitly discriminating against particular groups quite to the same extent. Though what is explicit versus what is implicit might not matter that much in the long run..
or if that doesn't work, emigrate!
Emigrate where??
once the standards get entrenched, they'll stay there until there's a compelling reason to switch.
Lack of royalties or usage fees seems like a pretty compelling reason to me!
You mean Server 2003? Aren't server versions of Windows quite expensive?
I'm just always baffled by complaints that Vista doesn't run as fast as on an older machine with much smaller specs than it does on a new one. That seems fairly obvious to me. :-P
Back when Vista first came out, machines with 512 MB of RAM were sold with Vista. So it's not just older computers. Many people didn't realize 512 MB wasn't enough, and got upset that their computers ran slowly out of the box.
--
I have always maintained that the best way to future-proof a machine is to put as much RAM as you can afford/it can hold when you buy it. Very few applications have ever really needed more CPU speed, but not enough memory is going to slow your machine to a crawl.
That used to be true a few years ago, but probably not anymore, for some people. Flash-based online video eats up both CPU usage and RAM in large amounts.
Maybe Vista is not slow anymore on newer machines with nice specs, but Windows 7 is still faster. :) You like Vista, but would you still pick it over Windows 7 if you didn't have a decent computer and were buying one when Windows 7 already came out?
Eventually, people will need more than 3 GB of RAM. At that point, the choice will be between XP x64, Vista, and Windows 7 if they want to stick with M$ Operating Systems. XP x64 has compatibility issues; Vista is slow. Take a guess at what they are going to pick.
"fast enough" has been achieved. speed is only the concern now of a small minority of power users
Vista was not "fast enough", due to being marketed for laptops with 512 MB RAM that couldn't handle it. Windows 7 is "fast enough", due to 3 years of improving hardware, even if it wasn't any faster than Vista. I'm betting Vista could have done very well if it was released this year or even last year, and only on systems with 2+ GB RAM.
Windows XP got slightly more bloated with every service pack and security update. We're comparing Windows 7 with XP SP3, not the original XP. In other words we're not really comparing an 8 year old OS.
Honestly, do you care what happens in 2303?
Yes, if a lot of medical advances happen during this century.
Very rarely does a librarian threaten to burn books, but it would be a better use of em that paying those publishing bastards another cent.
Sounds like Ray Bradbury had it backwards, huh?
Nukes aren't everything. Russia has about as many nukes, and doesn't go around imposing on other countries quite as much as the United States. Yes, I know about the fiasco with Georgia, but that's nothing in comparison to what United States does.
In terms of popularity, XP is just going on inertia - if you look at the actual figures, it's steadily declining.