I must have a different model Edge DiskGo, because mine requires a separate cable. I just keep one near my work and home computers, but there's the problem if I want to connect to a strange computer and I don't have my cable with me.
And really, it's not much of a watch. It looks nice. But it has the absolute bare minimum functionality, and the movement seems cheap and likely to break at any time.
Personally, I'd rather have my old Citizen Navihawk (Navy Edition) back, because it had the slide-rule bezel. Too damn expensive to replace though. (band broke, it fell into a lake).
I saw Martha Stewart get prosecuted, jailed, and serve a term in prison for lying to an agent investigating insider trading.
I've seen Enron's CFO, and some lower level execs go to jail.
I've seen an entire major accounting firm dismantled for involvement in the Enron scandal.
I've seen that J.Clifford Baxter, Enron's former CEO die of "apparent suicide", followed by a criminally negligent abbreviated autopsy.
I've yet to see Ken Lay suffer one bit for being the kingpin behind the Enron energy market price-fixing, and stock fraud. It's been 5 years. When will there be justice?
Corporations are simply legal entities that fulfill the role that Barons and Dukes used to fulfill in feudal times.
Constitutions, and individual rights were intended to protect against such abuses, but in America, a couple of bad court rulings granted corporations rights equivalent to humans - without the corresponding responsibilities or short lifespans.
That's the essence of this problem right now. A $50 Million fine is not a "just punishment" considering the crimes that were committed by certain individuals, nor does it act as an effective deterrent to such crimes (given the fact that they have been happening at an accelerating rate over the past 10 years or so - on the heels of the same sort of crap during the S&L crisis in the late 1980's).
Most people intuitively grasp that. Unfortunately, the law isn't structured that way.
However, the financial statements in question are from 1998 through 2000 which PREDATES Sarbox reach. So they get to keep any bonuses or stock profits. That doesn't mean civil suits can't go after them and bleed them to death in court, however.... unless they did like Ken Lay, and secretly socked it all away in anonymous accounts in Barbados or Switzerland, (and had his accountants shred the evidence while his best freind's DoJ sat around with their thumbs up their asses for 3 months) and then whine and cry to the press about how he's lost it all and he's broke.
She has brought trophies home of rats, lizards, birds (even hummingbirds, once a crow), frogs, and insects (usually butterflies), and once, a fish from the neighbor's koi pond (she also killed several of our goldfish before we gave up on fish) covering all major families of fauna (excluding only marsupials and monotremes). One day she brought home a rat, and laid it down neatly next to her bird, a double-kill.
I'm impressed with her prowess as a hunter. And she knows it. But she also knows I like to pet her, and she often won't allow it. She's not hunting to please me. She's hunting to amuse herself.
Nuclear power is actually CLEANER ounce per ounce than most other energy methods
Yes. But is it cleaner per joule?
And if you factor in the energy that goes into constructing plants, processing fuel, storing and guarding the waste products for 12 million years. . . these are costs that are often overlooked or deferred until they're someone else's problem.
The energy production density from Alcohol (as well as other forms of solar) is such that distributed generation is more economical (ie. rooftop solar cells, small farms owned by farmers as opposed to giant corporations). Therefore, it is more difficult to control from a centralized corporate hierarchy, than is petroleum, and tends to discourage authoritarian modes of government, because it empowers the masses to supply their own energy needs, instead of being dependent on an entrenched oil oligopoly.
Which is VERY dangerous.
This very dangerous idea has been around since 1776, and the oil companies have been trying to quash it ever since.
Re:Firefox has very serious problems.
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 1
I use Firefox on both Mac OS X and Windows and Linux.
I've seen Firefox crash on the Adobe plugin. And I've seen Firefox use lots of memory when I have lots of tabs open - and I reckon IE would suck just as much RAM if not more by having the same amount of Windows open (while making mulitple-window management of these pages an onerous chore).
I really don't have a problem at all with Firefox's bug fixing process. They tend to fix the critical security ones much more rapidly than Microsoft does for IE.
when gasoline rises to $10+ per gallon because of less (easy to get) oil being available, who's going to be in position to control the largest sources of oil in the world?
When gasoline rises to $10+ per gallon, who's going to be in a position to not give a rat's ass?
Countries who invested in renewables and alternative energy sources. That's who.
Countries who do not, leave themselves vulnerable to this threat, which is obvious, and which we've seen coming for over 40 years, and which we continue to ignore out of convenience, ignorance, and arrogance.
I've actually tried downloading a few shows via bittorrent. It's just plain not worth the time and the quality sucked. I have not tried iTunes video service, which also hosted the show I was trying to watch. But from what I've heard - it's not full-video quality, they're geared towards viewing on a video iPod.
The experience from renting a DVD was simply superior in every way, and worth the money.
For say $5 an episode, if I had a convenient way to view the show at DVD-quality level on my home theater system, and if I could reliably download in less than 12 hours, and keep a copy I'd burn onto my own media, then I'd say that the technology was there. So part of it's broadband penetration, and part of it is the quality of the downloadable content, which is inferior to DVD - and that's also mainly a function of bandwidth availability.
Originally, they're the ones who drew state borders without regard to ethnic populations, etc etc etc.
I'm certain that there WAS regard to ethnic populations, etc.
If you want a potential threat from growing in strength, this is precisely what you would do, to keep them squabbling amongst themselves. Rome did it to Brittania. The Soviet Union also did this among it's client-states, in order to weaken them and prevent them from rebelling - and once the Soviet Union crumbled, you got places like Serbia trying to un-shuffle the deck through "ethnic cleansing". And Saddam thought it was a pretty good idea too, so he transplanted a bunch of Kurds, Turkmen, and Arabs, who are now being shuffled around again.
Prince Bandar's wife funded terrorists. Terrorists that actually DID execute 9/11. George W Bush let the Saudi family flee the US after 9/11. George W Bush showed Bandar Iraq invasion plans that were marked NOFRN. Salam bin Laden bailed George W Bush out when he got a DUI. George W Bush has more proven connections with terrorists than Saddam Hussen did. Maybe he should be removed from office as a Clear and Present Threat to National Security.
You might invest some time investigating facts yourself, and stop spreading falsehoods.
Saddam Hussein did not fund suicide bombers. He gave money to their families. Most reasonable people see the difference there. But if you're looking for an excuse to pin crimes on someone, it's easy to conflate facts like that.
You say that given the chance and the skill, he would have loved to execute his own little 9/11. Well, I'm sure he would. But as the inspectors have told us, as our intelligence services all told us (except for the ones stovepiped through a bitter exile who also happens to be a convicted embezzler), Saddam didn't have the chance, or the skill, or the means, or any contacts with Islamic radicals.
But Bushists such as yourself refuse to accept those proven facts, because they conflict with your opinion that George W Bush is god's annointed leader of the free world, and that he can do no wrong.
My backbone stands up for my rights and liberties, and does not cower before fascist thugs who try to scare me about some abstract terrorist threat that their belligerent policies created in the first place.
I am in much more danger of dying of a car accident than I am in danger of dying from a terror attack. I'd be in even less danger of a terror attack if we'd pull out of the middle east.
If someone pushes false information even though they believed it, they are not lying. They are just wrong.
Oh yeah?
What if they've been told repeatedly that their facts are wrong, and they simply refuse to believe them, because it supports their worldview, even though the facts are irrefutable? Are they still just wrong? Willful ignorance of incontrovertible facts is dishonesty. Dishonesty is lying.
3 episodes per disk? That's nuts, for animation. One thing I learned when I had a Tivo; you can get away with a lot more compression with animation than you can for live video, and still have acceptable quality. Should be more like 30 episodes per disk. (btw - the reason I got rid of my Tivo was that their IR blaster wouldn't work with my satellite box).
Cable was originally supposed to be that way. Eventually, however, the cable networks realised that they could have it both ways and further increase their revenue, so they added commercials to their broadcasting just like the broadcast networks were doing.
Keep in mind that originally, music videos themselves were a B2B promotional tool used by record companies to sell bands to record-store chains. Then, when MTV came about, it was the catalyst that brought so many people into cable subscriptions. The commercials became the content. There's no distinction. So people would pay their $20/month to get cable, to watch MTV, which was essentially nothing but advertisements, and to bolster their revenue, they placed ads for other products in between ads for record albums (music videos). Can you think of a better scam?
So now, record companies pay radio stations to play the hits, just like McDonalds pays radio stations to air ads for burgers. The music you hear on radio is an ad. Where's the content? There's no content. Why should there be any content?
I shut off my satellite service two years ago. I don't really miss it. There are a couple of shows I'd like to watch, and I purchase or rent them on DVD. Video on Demand is an idea whose time has come. The technology isn't there yet. But it's only a matter of time.
Not a soldier myself - I just have not really read any criticism about the M-1, other than it's terrible fuel economy, and lack of cupholders. Anecdotes of it's performance in the first Gulf War against Saddam's tanks are legendary. I heard talk like "ten M-1's could have defeated both sides in the battle of the Kursk" - mainly based on the accuracy and range of the main gun more than anything else.
The Beretta fiasco was just one example off the top of my head of the countless costly boondoggles American Taxpayers have paid for that do not benefit our soldiers in the field. Yes, there are a lot of really great tools that American troops get, that were worth every penny (PAC-3, F-22, Minuteman III, A-10, M-1).
But there are many things that Americans paid for that either just plain don't work, or cost way more than they should. Stryker, Paladin, Osprey, Hornet, Halliburton's services in Gulf War Jr., etc. Some of this is done under cover of secrecy, to supposedly protect national security. Some of this is done out in the open (ie. whatever the hell Randy Duke Cunningham signed us up to buy from MZM for his $2 million in bribes).
My point is, the parent poster's assertion that everything troops are issued is great and dandy, was very naive. Military procurement is a business. This business is full of corruption, (though there are honest players, and the defense workers I am directly familliar with are among the most highly ethical human beings I know). This business is for profit. Sometimes at the expense of the targets of this weaponry, sometimes at the expense of the US Taxpayers, and sometimes at the expense of US troops.
I'm not saying that all cases like the Beretta (in that the problems were known and covered up, and the use of the Beretta was pushed to a broader scope than intended by the original program) are intentional or the result of graft. But graft happens, and it's extremely naive to believe it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this administration doesn't seem to need any evidence or links to jail "terrorists", so why should I for "Economic Terrorists"?
Defensive driving is the BEST countermeasure you can take against an accident.
Defensive driving is much more difficult to accomplish in an SUV, than in a more nimble car.
Then again, with the lackluster suspensions we're seeing on sedans these days, most are no better off.
I must have a different model Edge DiskGo, because mine requires a separate cable. I just keep one near my work and home computers, but there's the problem if I want to connect to a strange computer and I don't have my cable with me.
And really, it's not much of a watch. It looks nice. But it has the absolute bare minimum functionality, and the movement seems cheap and likely to break at any time.
Personally, I'd rather have my old Citizen Navihawk (Navy Edition) back, because it had the slide-rule bezel. Too damn expensive to replace though. (band broke, it fell into a lake).
Can any digital camera currently on the market write to an external USB device?
Not that I'm aware. But Firewire cameras can write to external firewire devices.
I saw Martha Stewart get prosecuted, jailed, and serve a term in prison for lying to an agent investigating insider trading.
I've seen Enron's CFO, and some lower level execs go to jail.
I've seen an entire major accounting firm dismantled for involvement in the Enron scandal.
I've seen that J.Clifford Baxter, Enron's former CEO die of "apparent suicide", followed by a criminally negligent abbreviated autopsy.
I've yet to see Ken Lay suffer one bit for being the kingpin behind the Enron energy market price-fixing, and stock fraud. It's been 5 years. When will there be justice?
Corporations are simply legal entities that fulfill the role that Barons and Dukes used to fulfill in feudal times.
Constitutions, and individual rights were intended to protect against such abuses, but in America, a couple of bad court rulings granted corporations rights equivalent to humans - without the corresponding responsibilities or short lifespans.
That's the essence of this problem right now. A $50 Million fine is not a "just punishment" considering the crimes that were committed by certain individuals, nor does it act as an effective deterrent to such crimes (given the fact that they have been happening at an accelerating rate over the past 10 years or so - on the heels of the same sort of crap during the S&L crisis in the late 1980's).
Most people intuitively grasp that. Unfortunately, the law isn't structured that way.
However, the financial statements in question are from 1998 through 2000 which PREDATES Sarbox reach. So they get to keep any bonuses or stock profits. That doesn't mean civil suits can't go after them and bleed them to death in court, however. ... unless they did like Ken Lay, and secretly socked it all away in anonymous accounts in Barbados or Switzerland, (and had his accountants shred the evidence while his best freind's DoJ sat around with their thumbs up their asses for 3 months) and then whine and cry to the press about how he's lost it all and he's broke.
Won't SOMEBODY please think of the shareholders?
My cat kills for sport, and frequently.
She has brought trophies home of rats, lizards, birds (even hummingbirds, once a crow), frogs, and insects (usually butterflies), and once, a fish from the neighbor's koi pond (she also killed several of our goldfish before we gave up on fish) covering all major families of fauna (excluding only marsupials and monotremes). One day she brought home a rat, and laid it down neatly next to her bird, a double-kill.
I'm impressed with her prowess as a hunter. And she knows it. But she also knows I like to pet her, and she often won't allow it. She's not hunting to please me. She's hunting to amuse herself.
Nuclear power is actually CLEANER ounce per ounce than most other energy methods
Yes. But is it cleaner per joule?
And if you factor in the energy that goes into constructing plants, processing fuel, storing and guarding the waste products for 12 million years. . . these are costs that are often overlooked or deferred until they're someone else's problem.
It's also significantly more expensive, even if you ignore the farming subsidies that artificially cheapen it.
That's fine, as long as you also ignore the DoD subsidies that artifically cheapen petroleum.
The energy production density from Alcohol (as well as other forms of solar) is such that distributed generation is more economical (ie. rooftop solar cells, small farms owned by farmers as opposed to giant corporations). Therefore, it is more difficult to control from a centralized corporate hierarchy, than is petroleum, and tends to discourage authoritarian modes of government, because it empowers the masses to supply their own energy needs, instead of being dependent on an entrenched oil oligopoly.
Which is VERY dangerous.
This very dangerous idea has been around since 1776, and the oil companies have been trying to quash it ever since.
I use Firefox on both Mac OS X and Windows and Linux.
I've seen Firefox crash on the Adobe plugin. And I've seen Firefox use lots of memory when I have lots of tabs open - and I reckon IE would suck just as much RAM if not more by having the same amount of Windows open (while making mulitple-window management of these pages an onerous chore).
I really don't have a problem at all with Firefox's bug fixing process. They tend to fix the critical security ones much more rapidly than Microsoft does for IE.
when gasoline rises to $10+ per gallon because of less (easy to get) oil being available, who's going to be in position to control the largest sources of oil in the world?
When gasoline rises to $10+ per gallon, who's going to be in a position to not give a rat's ass?
Countries who invested in renewables and alternative energy sources. That's who.
Countries who do not, leave themselves vulnerable to this threat, which is obvious, and which we've seen coming for over 40 years, and which we continue to ignore out of convenience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Sorry.
I've actually tried downloading a few shows via bittorrent. It's just plain not worth the time and the quality sucked. I have not tried iTunes video service, which also hosted the show I was trying to watch. But from what I've heard - it's not full-video quality, they're geared towards viewing on a video iPod.
The experience from renting a DVD was simply superior in every way, and worth the money.
For say $5 an episode, if I had a convenient way to view the show at DVD-quality level on my home theater system, and if I could reliably download in less than 12 hours, and keep a copy I'd burn onto my own media, then I'd say that the technology was there. So part of it's broadband penetration, and part of it is the quality of the downloadable content, which is inferior to DVD - and that's also mainly a function of bandwidth availability.
Originally, they're the ones who drew state borders without regard to ethnic populations, etc etc etc.
I'm certain that there WAS regard to ethnic populations, etc.
If you want a potential threat from growing in strength, this is precisely what you would do, to keep them squabbling amongst themselves. Rome did it to Brittania. The Soviet Union also did this among it's client-states, in order to weaken them and prevent them from rebelling - and once the Soviet Union crumbled, you got places like Serbia trying to un-shuffle the deck through "ethnic cleansing". And Saddam thought it was a pretty good idea too, so he transplanted a bunch of Kurds, Turkmen, and Arabs, who are now being shuffled around again.
Prince Bandar's wife funded terrorists. Terrorists that actually DID execute 9/11. George W Bush let the Saudi family flee the US after 9/11. George W Bush showed Bandar Iraq invasion plans that were marked NOFRN. Salam bin Laden bailed George W Bush out when he got a DUI. George W Bush has more proven connections with terrorists than Saddam Hussen did. Maybe he should be removed from office as a Clear and Present Threat to National Security.
You might invest some time investigating facts yourself, and stop spreading falsehoods.
Saddam Hussein did not fund suicide bombers. He gave money to their families. Most reasonable people see the difference there. But if you're looking for an excuse to pin crimes on someone, it's easy to conflate facts like that.
You say that given the chance and the skill, he would have loved to execute his own little 9/11. Well, I'm sure he would. But as the inspectors have told us, as our intelligence services all told us (except for the ones stovepiped through a bitter exile who also happens to be a convicted embezzler), Saddam didn't have the chance, or the skill, or the means, or any contacts with Islamic radicals.
But Bushists such as yourself refuse to accept those proven facts, because they conflict with your opinion that George W Bush is god's annointed leader of the free world, and that he can do no wrong.
Grow a freaking backbone.
My backbone stands up for my rights and liberties, and does not cower before fascist thugs who try to scare me about some abstract terrorist threat that their belligerent policies created in the first place.
I am in much more danger of dying of a car accident than I am in danger of dying from a terror attack. I'd be in even less danger of a terror attack if we'd pull out of the middle east.
If someone pushes false information even though they believed it, they are not lying. They are just wrong.
Oh yeah?
What if they've been told repeatedly that their facts are wrong, and they simply refuse to believe them, because it supports their worldview, even though the facts are irrefutable? Are they still just wrong? Willful ignorance of incontrovertible facts is dishonesty. Dishonesty is lying.
nuff said?
3 episodes per disk? That's nuts, for animation. One thing I learned when I had a Tivo; you can get away with a lot more compression with animation than you can for live video, and still have acceptable quality. Should be more like 30 episodes per disk. (btw - the reason I got rid of my Tivo was that their IR blaster wouldn't work with my satellite box).
Cable was originally supposed to be that way. Eventually, however, the cable networks realised that they could have it both ways and further increase their revenue, so they added commercials to their broadcasting just like the broadcast networks were doing.
Keep in mind that originally, music videos themselves were a B2B promotional tool used by record companies to sell bands to record-store chains. Then, when MTV came about, it was the catalyst that brought so many people into cable subscriptions. The commercials became the content. There's no distinction. So people would pay their $20/month to get cable, to watch MTV, which was essentially nothing but advertisements, and to bolster their revenue, they placed ads for other products in between ads for record albums (music videos). Can you think of a better scam?
So now, record companies pay radio stations to play the hits, just like McDonalds pays radio stations to air ads for burgers. The music you hear on radio is an ad. Where's the content? There's no content. Why should there be any content?
I shut off my satellite service two years ago. I don't really miss it. There are a couple of shows I'd like to watch, and I purchase or rent them on DVD. Video on Demand is an idea whose time has come. The technology isn't there yet. But it's only a matter of time.
Not a soldier myself - I just have not really read any criticism about the M-1, other than it's terrible fuel economy, and lack of cupholders. Anecdotes of it's performance in the first Gulf War against Saddam's tanks are legendary. I heard talk like "ten M-1's could have defeated both sides in the battle of the Kursk" - mainly based on the accuracy and range of the main gun more than anything else.
You don't sound too cynical "still cynical" -
The Beretta fiasco was just one example off the top of my head of the countless costly boondoggles American Taxpayers have paid for that do not benefit our soldiers in the field. Yes, there are a lot of really great tools that American troops get, that were worth every penny (PAC-3, F-22, Minuteman III, A-10, M-1).
But there are many things that Americans paid for that either just plain don't work, or cost way more than they should. Stryker, Paladin, Osprey, Hornet, Halliburton's services in Gulf War Jr., etc. Some of this is done under cover of secrecy, to supposedly protect national security. Some of this is done out in the open (ie. whatever the hell Randy Duke Cunningham signed us up to buy from MZM for his $2 million in bribes).
My point is, the parent poster's assertion that everything troops are issued is great and dandy, was very naive. Military procurement is a business. This business is full of corruption, (though there are honest players, and the defense workers I am directly familliar with are among the most highly ethical human beings I know). This business is for profit. Sometimes at the expense of the targets of this weaponry, sometimes at the expense of the US Taxpayers, and sometimes at the expense of US troops.
I'm not saying that all cases like the Beretta (in that the problems were known and covered up, and the use of the Beretta was pushed to a broader scope than intended by the original program) are intentional or the result of graft. But graft happens, and it's extremely naive to believe it doesn't.