So conservation does not help global warming, it just lowers the price so that the Chineese can burn more, and it discourages alternative fuel research.
so, you're telling me that the Bush Administration's policies of: 1. Encouraging more consumption - and 2. Spreading chaos and war to disrupt oil production
Are really stealth environmentalist policies driven by a desire to push development of alternatives into the marketplace?
So - then it doesn't matter if the hash algorithm is breakable? Since the hash gets encrypted? Or can the "broken" hash be used as a shortcut to attack the encryption?
When you configure a Cryptographic Provider for a Certificate Server, you're asked to specify your choice of hashing algorithm (MD2, MD4, MD5, SHA-1). What's that for?
Never mind five or ten years down the road when you need new products to stay competitive and don't have any.
then, you just buy your "bloated" competitor, sell their preoducts, and lay off their R&D, and open a call-center in Pune. When the execs are fat on inflated stock options, and sales start to decline again, buy another competitor. Repeat until you're a monopoly.
Read my lips. Patents don't last. No form of IP lasts. Monopolies that are not coercively protected by the state do not last.
A Patent is a monopoly that is coercively protected by the state. If the state decides that patents should be extended, because the patent-holder brib- er, donates to re-election campaigns of office holders, then they sure as hell do last.
Is George Bush adversely affecting the frame rate of graphics card?
Undoubtedly, yes.
By causing the USDOJ to essentially drop it's case against Microsoft, Microsoft was better able to push the xBox into the gaming marketspace, which adversely affected PC gaming marketshare, which relaxed the economic demand placed on PC graphics card vendors to push the technical envelope.
So in a way, yes, George Bush has adversely affected the frame rate of graphics cards.
Can you come up with a theory on anything he's done to help in this area?
Yeah, and you know what they're going to do to those samples when they're returned?
Run them through a spectroscope.
Re:even worse are misleading options
on
Office 12 Exposed
·
· Score: 1
I agree, that's fucked up.
They went from %systemroot%\profiles\%username% to \Documents and Settings\%username%, and NOW they're finally doing a \Users directory? Whats going to be in the next version? \Home? Fucking assholes.
Re:just what I always wanted from a word proccesso
on
Office 12 Exposed
·
· Score: 1
Well, I've always thought it was somewhat retarded; most people work on a document in portrait-mode, and the monitor is laid-out in landscape-mode. The horizontal waste-space, of course, is used in some other applications (example: photoshop), and is also used by the OS (application-switching, etc.) - but both Windows and OS X default to putting their application-switcher on the bottom of the screen (ie - more infringement on portrait-mode documents). Menu-bars infringe on portrait-mode editing. So do button-bars.
This was one reason why I liked the Macintosh way of integrating all application menus with the system menu bar. That, and the fact that it was adjacent to a screen-edge, easier to target (I read Ars Technica too).
The only sensible approach I ever saw to non-typesetting word processing, was the monitor that flipped 90 degrees, to allow you to work in portrait-mode.
Of course, professional typesetters work in landscape mode, because they do two pages at once, they're doing the pre-binding layout.
But for these two exceptions; the rest of us are forced to edit portrait-mode scrolling documents, on a landscape-mode monitor and OS GUI. And every revision of word that comes out, takes more and more vertical space away from the document, as more and more menus and button bar noise is added.
Sure - you CAN customize Word to display button bars as vertical pallets. But that doesn't answer the menu problem.
So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion
You mispelled "a group of privileged nobles".
One rule of pretty much every government: keep your freinds close, and your enemies closer. John treated his barons like crap. How else did he think he was going to hold onto power?
At least Bush keeps his barons fat and happy. When you've got that, the Constitution doesn't really mean jack shit.
Ironically, this quote actually originated from a influencer of Benjamin Franklin's, The Baron de Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. A Frenchman. Not the place most American Nationalists (I won't call them Republicans or Conservatives, because they just aren't) think of as the origin of the idea of freedom.
Say what you will about the whole "judicial activist" canard, and originalism, and all that garbage. I hear a lot of fellow liberals give Scalia a hard time, but I read his dissents, and I can only conclude that this guy's on our side. We need more Scalias. (Roberts is no Scalia - unfortunately. Neither is Thomas.)
Slashdot Mirror
Shareholder lawsuit coming in 5, 4, 3, 2. . .
Look at all of the species gone, do to man.
Personally, I can't wait until the last elephant dies. An extinct species would be the ideal mascot for the Republican Party.
So conservation does not help global warming, it just lowers the price so that the Chineese can burn more, and it discourages alternative fuel research.
so, you're telling me that the Bush Administration's policies of:
1. Encouraging more consumption - and
2. Spreading chaos and war to disrupt oil production
Are really stealth environmentalist policies driven by a desire to push development of alternatives into the marketplace?
BRILLIANT! Best President Evar!
So - then it doesn't matter if the hash algorithm is breakable? Since the hash gets encrypted? Or can the "broken" hash be used as a shortcut to attack the encryption?
. . . with the part of Karl Rove played by Dennis Hopper?
I don't understand.
When you configure a Cryptographic Provider for a Certificate Server, you're asked to specify your choice of hashing algorithm (MD2, MD4, MD5, SHA-1). What's that for?
Never mind five or ten years down the road when you need new products to stay competitive and don't have any.
then, you just buy your "bloated" competitor, sell their preoducts, and lay off their R&D, and open a call-center in Pune. When the execs are fat on inflated stock options, and sales start to decline again, buy another competitor. Repeat until you're a monopoly.
. . .everything from lobbying to ski-resort trips for doctors.
Argh! Thanks for ruining my Friday by giving me yet another reason why I'm in the wrong fucking profession.
Transmeta?
I dunno - low voltage and all. . . .
The vast majority of the pharm money is not spent on R&D. It's wasted on marketing, administration and inefficient production.
You misspelled "executive compensation" and "donations to political campaigns". Though the marketing is at least as significant as these.
Read my lips. Patents don't last. No form of IP lasts. Monopolies that are not coercively protected by the state do not last.
A Patent is a monopoly that is coercively protected by the state. If the state decides that patents should be extended, because the patent-holder brib- er, donates to re-election campaigns of office holders, then they sure as hell do last.
In other words;
Necessity is the mother of invention. (as opposed to greed).
...R&D costs will almost ALWAYS top manufacturing costs...
And marketing and executive compensation will ALWAYS top R&D costs.
The problem was that Kennedy was percieved as being a spoiled rich boy by Nikita Khrushchev,
Ah. Sounds like Khruschchev misunderestimated him.
Is George Bush adversely affecting the frame rate of graphics card?
Undoubtedly, yes.
By causing the USDOJ to essentially drop it's case against Microsoft, Microsoft was better able to push the xBox into the gaming marketspace, which adversely affected PC gaming marketshare, which relaxed the economic demand placed on PC graphics card vendors to push the technical envelope.
So in a way, yes, George Bush has adversely affected the frame rate of graphics cards.
Can you come up with a theory on anything he's done to help in this area?
Yeah, and you know what they're going to do to those samples when they're returned?
Run them through a spectroscope.
I agree, that's fucked up.
They went from %systemroot%\profiles\%username% to \Documents and Settings\%username%, and NOW they're finally doing a \Users directory? Whats going to be in the next version? \Home? Fucking assholes.
Well, I've always thought it was somewhat retarded; most people work on a document in portrait-mode, and the monitor is laid-out in landscape-mode. The horizontal waste-space, of course, is used in some other applications (example: photoshop), and is also used by the OS (application-switching, etc.) - but both Windows and OS X default to putting their application-switcher on the bottom of the screen (ie - more infringement on portrait-mode documents). Menu-bars infringe on portrait-mode editing. So do button-bars.
This was one reason why I liked the Macintosh way of integrating all application menus with the system menu bar. That, and the fact that it was adjacent to a screen-edge, easier to target (I read Ars Technica too).
The only sensible approach I ever saw to non-typesetting word processing, was the monitor that flipped 90 degrees, to allow you to work in portrait-mode.
Of course, professional typesetters work in landscape mode, because they do two pages at once, they're doing the pre-binding layout.
But for these two exceptions; the rest of us are forced to edit portrait-mode scrolling documents, on a landscape-mode monitor and OS GUI. And every revision of word that comes out, takes more and more vertical space away from the document, as more and more menus and button bar noise is added.
Sure - you CAN customize Word to display button bars as vertical pallets. But that doesn't answer the menu problem.
What's next, . . . ?
um. . . NT PPC?
You think the post 9/11 recession was bad?
No, but the Post-Enron recession really sucked!
So horrified did England become that it rose up in rebellion
You mispelled "a group of privileged nobles".
One rule of pretty much every government: keep your freinds close, and your enemies closer. John treated his barons like crap. How else did he think he was going to hold onto power?
At least Bush keeps his barons fat and happy. When you've got that, the Constitution doesn't really mean jack shit.
So are our enemies.
Count on them to strike first.
That's what I would do if I were threatened.
Ironically, this quote actually originated from a influencer of Benjamin Franklin's, The Baron de Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. A Frenchman. Not the place most American Nationalists (I won't call them Republicans or Conservatives, because they just aren't) think of as the origin of the idea of freedom.
Say what you will about the whole "judicial activist" canard, and originalism, and all that garbage. I hear a lot of fellow liberals give Scalia a hard time, but I read his dissents, and I can only conclude that this guy's on our side. We need more Scalias. (Roberts is no Scalia - unfortunately. Neither is Thomas.)
no, it's just that, that 90,000 hectare lake where New Orleans used to be. . .