I can't say for sure, but if he is worried about the CPU's ability to run X, then he probably has a pretty old processor and, therefore, motherboard. Old motherboard's cannot handle that kind of storage.
I'm running a K6-2 400MHz machine, and the best it can do is run a 30GB hard drive (which is actually a 40GB hd jumpered down to 30GB).
So, a $30 60GB hard drive (are they really *that* cheap?!) would probably cost a lot more, considering CPU and MB.
I asked the "Environment" question (as you can see here), and I figured I could let everyone know what I thought about the responses.
Considering Bush and Kerry, I don't think either of them answered my question. Bush gave some facts about what he did in office, and Kerry gave some foggy goal of "using renewable fuels for 20 percent of our energy by 2020." Honestly, I don't think either of those answers addressed the actual question, and I don't think either of their plans are very ambitious or world-changing.
Nader answered the question, but he kind of just copied text from the Apollo Alliance (something I did *not* know about when I asked the question). It would have been nice for him to show some leadership skills and use his own words.
As I say on my website, I'm very disappointed in how these candidates answered my question (and actually all 12 questions), but I think the idea of this debate/forum is pretty cool. It just sucks that this year's candidates don't know how to answer questions.
(I wrote more about my thoughts on my website. Check it out if you're actually interested.)
Don't forget, the other two candidates didn't answer the question either.
Well, Nader did say he decided to never eat a hot dog again, but I don't think that quite matches the wording of the question: "Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance." Note "national importance".
I've read all three of those articles, and I'm a little confused. It seems to me that the thing everyone is worried about is the ability to fradulantly register voters, and then have people pretend to be those voters on election day. But isn't this something that any and all registrants can do? Why are the New Voters being singled out here as the "criminal" organization?
One of the articles claims that the New Voters being a registrant is bad because it can push its ideals on the voter as he registers. Even granting that the New Voters may be partisanly-biased (something they claim is untrue), how is this different than me going up to my Campus Republicans' club and registering at their booth (something I've done more than once in the past)? Maybe that's something you can't do in Wisconsin, I don't know (I live in CA).
But if you could explain to me why this is such a bad thing, I'm willing to listen. I just don't see why the New Voters have been singled out.
I'm asking an honest question here, not trying to be flamebait:
This is how I understand the situation. The White House/CIA/people-in-power had evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability. It was not irrefutable, though, because two reputable sources questioned it, with legitimate reasons. The White House, however, decided to proceed with their conclusion, even though they knew there were questions about the evidence.
Doesn't this sound exactly like the Rather memos? From what I remember reading, the memos were questioned by a couple of their sources, but they felt confident enough anyway to announce their conclusions.
Like I said, I'm not trying to be flamebait here. Am I seeing this situation too simplistically? Or are the similarities really there? If they are, isn't it hypocritical for Bush supporters to ignore this?
This is the question I asked (you can see here - and please read my initial version of the question for my full intentions), so I figured I'd do a little explaining of why I asked.
I know about the money Bush gave to this in his last State of the Union address. I did not know about Kerry's specific plan. But that's not the point. I made the connection to the space race in the 60s for a reason.
In the 60s, a lot of money and political power was put into the space race so that we could definitely win. It was an incredible challenge and an equally incredible victory. The point is that the use of alternative fuels is also an incredible challenge (if not more so), and it will require an equally incredible movement. I don't think either of the two plans they've given are up to the task. It's as if they aren't really trying to solve the problem, and more like they're just trying to do *something* to say they've addressed it. Maybe I'm wrong. That's why I've asked the question.
I'm wondering if Bush/Kerry can explain why a large movement hasn't been made to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think their answers to the second half of the question are the more telling in this regard.
In 1962, Pres. Kennedy delivered a famous speech at Rice Univ. where he said "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." And, as history shows, he was not wrong.
It is my opinion that if we as a nation were to put this same kind of effort, resolve and money into alternative fuels, we would be able to remove ourselves from a dependency on foreign and domestic oil. This would help conserve our environment for future generations, provide new science that could benefit countless other disciplines, and lower our level of involvement in contentious and controversial issues regarding the Middle East and other oil producing countries.
My question for you, sir, is: is this opinion right? And, if it is, would you be willing to focus our nation on such a positive issue for your term of office, especially considering the potential benefits; or, if it is not, why not? Is the goal of alternative fuels so difficult to attain that a concerted effort by American scientists and businesses would not be able to substantially advance the field, or are the benefits of an independence from foreign oil not quite what I imagine?
This is a very important issue to me and many others, as it could effect the health and security of our nation for decades to come. Thank you for taking the time to consider it.
However, due to the 500 char limit imposed (but not expressed on the page), this is the question I asked:
In the 1960s, a concerted effort was made, at the behest of Pres. Kennedy, to reach the moon within 10 years, a very ambitious goal that was ultimately achieved. Do you think that, if a similar effort were made to develop alternative fuels, we would be similarly successful and would you be willing to make this effort? Also, what benefits do you see alternative fuels bringing our nation, with respect to education, environment, security, and foreign policy?
Joey Lauren Adams' character in Chasing Amy was named Alyssa (which I'm sure is what IMDB says). The name Amy in the title is in reference to the story Silent Bob tells Holden at the coffee shop.
No, you are not dumb. Hyperreal is not a word. God only knows what Katz has decided it means. What I think is so funny about it, though, is the way he uses it over and over, like its a word we use in conversation at least 50 times a day.
I bet its a term he read in some obscure book about how Columbine affected the stock market, which in turn affected the geekdom of Atlanta Braves' pitchers Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine, causing them to lose, thereby leading to a more depressed geek nation in the geek capital of the world, Atlanta, Georgia.
It's here: Doublespeak. It's finally arrived, courtesy of Redmond's marketing and advertising. MS has mastered the tactic of speaking the opposite of the truth, and using that to sell...
Doublespeak? I hope you weren't referring to Orwell's 1984 when you said that (but it certainly seems that way by bringing up the "cages with rats...").In 1984, the language that Orwell invented was not called doublespeak, and did not have to do with speaking the opposite of the truth. The language Orwell invented was called "newspeak" and was intended to limit the speaker's freedom of thought by getting rid of superfluous words. The idea behind the language is "Why should we waste our time having the word 'bad' when all we need is 'good' and its negation, 'ungood'?" By limiting the vocabulary of the population to such small confines, the government hoped to be able restrict complex thought, simply by not letting the people know the words to think of it in.
This is not the 'doublespeak' that you speak of.
I'm not saying this isn't the case, and I'm for sure not saying I agree with Lucas' decision, but there may be some reasoning behind it. I remember reading (or even watching) something a little while back about the problems they had shooting Ep1 with their robot R2s. You see, many of R2s scenes were on very unforgiving terrain, and the robots they had built didn't handle this terrain very well. I think they had something like 3 or 4 robot R2s, and, for the first while of shooting, they'd be lucky if they could get one of those robots working the day they needed it.
So I can understand, to a certain extent, why Lucas would just want to get rid of the robots altogether, but I still don't see why he needs to completely get rid of Kenny Baker too.
You guys all read the novella, right? Because the novella (which is about 60 pages) is a whole lot better than the full length novel.
If you've never read the novella and can get ahold of it, I highly recommend reading it. My eigth grade teacher had us read it on photocopied packets instead of from the actual book it was in, so I can never seem to find it though.
Step One: Let's Shut Down Metallica's attacks on computer users, not Napster. Stop buying the band's music. Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs.
Does this sound like a bad idea to anyone other than me?
I mean, we have a band here fighting its hardest to get 335,000 users band from Napster for illegally distributing mp3s. This piracy of Metallica's intellectual property hurts Metallica because they lose money on it (supposedly), and this is why they're getting these users banned.
Now, Katz wants us all to boycott Metallica music. If we do that, Metallica will be sure to lose money.
But doesn't that just give Metallica PROOF that they're losing money because of MP3s... "Your honor, we have here record sales from the pre-Napster era. And we have record sales from around the time we discovered 335,000 people distributing our songs. As you can clearly see, the record sales have gone down, indicating that the illegal distribution of MP3s does hurt profits..."
I don't know about you, but this may seem like a pretty stupid plan of Katz's.....
For the record, I was making a reference to the fact that the tux shop purposely misspelled the name, just like I did. He also had stuff like the Harrison Fyord (or something like that).
On to this subject:
which is pronounced FORT, not FOR-TAY, for all you cosmopolitan-wannabe fucks that pronounce it the latter way
According to my academic decathlon teacher in high school, FORTE is pronounced FORT for everything except music. If you were to say "The piano is my forte" you'd pronounce it "FOR-TAY" but if you were to say "Pouring hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants is my forte" you'd pronounce it FORT.
Of course, my AD teacher has been known to be wrong, so I'm not giving any guarantees. That's just how I learned it.
That's a nice little Malkovich link they have up there. I mean, I love the homage to such a great movie, but does it bother anybody else that they spelled Malkovich wrong... all 37593 times!
Maybe it's some copyright/trademark thing (like, at the tux shop I got my tux for prom at, I rented the Pierce Bronzen tux)... but following a copyright/trademark law doesn't seem to go with the whole/. thing. Whatever it is, it kind of bugs me......
Yes, but will Circuit City be carrying the original Apex model that can do what you say? Because, according to this article, the Apex 600A has been modified so this cannot be done. So I'm guessing that, if Circuit City just got these back in stock, they will be moded models, and therefore not worth it.
I don't understand why/. has decided to post this information twice. If anybody remembers, there was an article on/. two days ago which linked to this page at The Digital Bits about the rumor. If anyone bothered to read this page (ie, Hemos), they would've noticed that in the Digital Bits article, it says the exact same thing that this post is about.
Having said that, I am all for Lucas to release a dvd of TPM. I have been waiting for one to come out since I saw TPM in the theatres. Let's hope this rumor is true (even if the Sept 12 date is wrong).
DVDs are already obsolete. The HDTV standard which is being implemented right now blows them away in a few short years
I don't know about you, but when I buy DVDs, I try my hardest to get movies with anamorphic transfers. And they are generally found. If you don't know what anamorphic transfers are, here is a brief description:
Anamorphic = enhanced for widescreen TVs = enhanced for 16:9 TVs
meaning, made to look _REAL_ good on HDTVs
meaning, gonna comply with HDTV standards just fine
not meaning, gonna be obsolete in a couple of years
Not only should people only buy DVDs, but they also should only buy Anamorphic DVDs. It's too bad not all studios release their DVDs with an anamorphic transfer. But, when HDTV does get more marketshare, I'm sure they will....
Get a good Hi-Fi 4 head VCR and you'll be as happy as a clown (they sell for under 100$ now)
Oh yeah? Well, you probably don't get enough usage out of your DVD player then. Check this article out, and you'll see why so many people are screaming for Star Wars on DVD.
The thing is, code isn't considered free speech because of what it does. It is considered free speech because of how it is written to do what it does. Anyone who has coded anything knows that there are about 10^6786 different ways to write a particular program. These differences are what the judge acknowledged by declaring code to be free speech.
Well, I'm glad someone around here other than me can understand this. C'mon people, you all need to watch a little more Muppets!!
I'll see if I can translate this quickly:
============================== "So you've shut off your cookies, blocked those banner ads, and installed JunkBuster. Feeling secure in your anonymity? Well, Martin Paul at Linuxcare Australia knows a way they can still track you while you surf: By using the HTTP ceche-a-cuntrul[can't really read this correctly]. Hurty hurty schnipp schnipp! It's far more diffused(?) than cookies, and more hard to block too. His article, the Meantime Exploit, will give you a description and a demonstartion." It's a bonus. Merteen's writing is funny and clear. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Welcome to Standard Perunia(?) Team. ===================================
So I couldn't understand it 100 percent. So sue me!
Slashdot Mirror
But what about the mb?
I can't say for sure, but if he is worried about the CPU's ability to run X, then he probably has a pretty old processor and, therefore, motherboard. Old motherboard's cannot handle that kind of storage.
I'm running a K6-2 400MHz machine, and the best it can do is run a 30GB hard drive (which is actually a 40GB hd jumpered down to 30GB).
So, a $30 60GB hard drive (are they really *that* cheap?!) would probably cost a lot more, considering CPU and MB.
I asked the "Environment" question (as you can see here), and I figured I could let everyone know what I thought about the responses.
Considering Bush and Kerry, I don't think either of them answered my question. Bush gave some facts about what he did in office, and Kerry gave some foggy goal of "using renewable fuels for 20 percent of our energy by 2020." Honestly, I don't think either of those answers addressed the actual question, and I don't think either of their plans are very ambitious or world-changing.
Nader answered the question, but he kind of just copied text from the Apollo Alliance (something I did *not* know about when I asked the question). It would have been nice for him to show some leadership skills and use his own words.
As I say on my website, I'm very disappointed in how these candidates answered my question (and actually all 12 questions), but I think the idea of this debate/forum is pretty cool. It just sucks that this year's candidates don't know how to answer questions.
(I wrote more about my thoughts on my website. Check it out if you're actually interested.)
Don't forget, the other two candidates didn't answer the question either.
Well, Nader did say he decided to never eat a hot dog again, but I don't think that quite matches the wording of the question: "Tell us about a time when you had an honest change of opinion on a topic of national importance." Note "national importance".
I've read all three of those articles, and I'm a little confused. It seems to me that the thing everyone is worried about is the ability to fradulantly register voters, and then have people pretend to be those voters on election day. But isn't this something that any and all registrants can do? Why are the New Voters being singled out here as the "criminal" organization?
One of the articles claims that the New Voters being a registrant is bad because it can push its ideals on the voter as he registers. Even granting that the New Voters may be partisanly-biased (something they claim is untrue), how is this different than me going up to my Campus Republicans' club and registering at their booth (something I've done more than once in the past)? Maybe that's something you can't do in Wisconsin, I don't know (I live in CA).
But if you could explain to me why this is such a bad thing, I'm willing to listen. I just don't see why the New Voters have been singled out.
I'm asking an honest question here, not trying to be flamebait:
This is how I understand the situation. The White House/CIA/people-in-power had evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability. It was not irrefutable, though, because two reputable sources questioned it, with legitimate reasons. The White House, however, decided to proceed with their conclusion, even though they knew there were questions about the evidence.
Doesn't this sound exactly like the Rather memos? From what I remember reading, the memos were questioned by a couple of their sources, but they felt confident enough anyway to announce their conclusions.
Like I said, I'm not trying to be flamebait here. Am I seeing this situation too simplistically? Or are the similarities really there? If they are, isn't it hypocritical for Bush supporters to ignore this?
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
This is the question I asked (you can see here - and please read my initial version of the question for my full intentions), so I figured I'd do a little explaining of why I asked.
I know about the money Bush gave to this in his last State of the Union address. I did not know about Kerry's specific plan. But that's not the point. I made the connection to the space race in the 60s for a reason.
In the 60s, a lot of money and political power was put into the space race so that we could definitely win. It was an incredible challenge and an equally incredible victory. The point is that the use of alternative fuels is also an incredible challenge (if not more so), and it will require an equally incredible movement. I don't think either of the two plans they've given are up to the task. It's as if they aren't really trying to solve the problem, and more like they're just trying to do *something* to say they've addressed it. Maybe I'm wrong. That's why I've asked the question.
I'm wondering if Bush/Kerry can explain why a large movement hasn't been made to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I think their answers to the second half of the question are the more telling in this regard.
However, due to the 500 char limit imposed (but not expressed on the page), this is the question I asked:
The decline is from 53% to 40%.
.245, or, a 24.5% decline
53-40 = 13
13/53 =
Joey Lauren Adams' character in Chasing Amy was named Alyssa (which I'm sure is what IMDB says). The name Amy in the title is in reference to the story Silent Bob tells Holden at the coffee shop.
No, you are not dumb. Hyperreal is not a word. God only knows what Katz has decided it means. What I think is so funny about it, though, is the way he uses it over and over, like its a word we use in conversation at least 50 times a day. I bet its a term he read in some obscure book about how Columbine affected the stock market, which in turn affected the geekdom of Atlanta Braves' pitchers Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine, causing them to lose, thereby leading to a more depressed geek nation in the geek capital of the world, Atlanta, Georgia.
==
==
www.salshdot.org frames slashdot...... see?
==
I'm not saying this isn't the case, and I'm for sure not saying I agree with Lucas' decision, but there may be some reasoning behind it. I remember reading (or even watching) something a little while back about the problems they had shooting Ep1 with their robot R2s. You see, many of R2s scenes were on very unforgiving terrain, and the robots they had built didn't handle this terrain very well. I think they had something like 3 or 4 robot R2s, and, for the first while of shooting, they'd be lucky if they could get one of those robots working the day they needed it.
So I can understand, to a certain extent, why Lucas would just want to get rid of the robots altogether, but I still don't see why he needs to completely get rid of Kenny Baker too.
==
If you've never read the novella and can get ahold of it, I highly recommend reading it. My eigth grade teacher had us read it on photocopied packets instead of from the actual book it was in, so I can never seem to find it though.
==
I mean, we have a band here fighting its hardest to get 335,000 users band from Napster for illegally distributing mp3s. This piracy of Metallica's intellectual property hurts Metallica because they lose money on it (supposedly), and this is why they're getting these users banned.
Now, Katz wants us all to boycott Metallica music. If we do that, Metallica will be sure to lose money.
But doesn't that just give Metallica PROOF that they're losing money because of MP3s... "Your honor, we have here record sales from the pre-Napster era. And we have record sales from around the time we discovered 335,000 people distributing our songs. As you can clearly see, the record sales have gone down, indicating that the illegal distribution of MP3s does hurt profits..."
I don't know about you, but this may seem like a pretty stupid plan of Katz's.....
==
On to this subject:
According to my academic decathlon teacher in high school, FORTE is pronounced FORT for everything except music. If you were to say "The piano is my forte" you'd pronounce it "FOR-TAY" but if you were to say "Pouring hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants is my forte" you'd pronounce it FORT.Of course, my AD teacher has been known to be wrong, so I'm not giving any guarantees. That's just how I learned it.
==
Maybe it's some copyright/trademark thing (like, at the tux shop I got my tux for prom at, I rented the Pierce Bronzen tux)... but following a copyright/trademark law doesn't seem to go with the whole /. thing. Whatever it is, it kind of bugs me......
==
Yes, but will Circuit City be carrying the original Apex model that can do what you say? Because, according to this article, the Apex 600A has been modified so this cannot be done. So I'm guessing that, if Circuit City just got these back in stock, they will be moded models, and therefore not worth it.
==
Having said that, I am all for Lucas to release a dvd of TPM. I have been waiting for one to come out since I saw TPM in the theatres. Let's hope this rumor is true (even if the Sept 12 date is wrong).
==
Anamorphic = enhanced for widescreen TVs = enhanced for 16:9 TVs
meaning, made to look _REAL_ good on HDTVs
meaning, gonna comply with HDTV standards just fine
not meaning, gonna be obsolete in a couple of years
Not only should people only buy DVDs, but they also should only buy Anamorphic DVDs. It's too bad not all studios release their DVDs with an anamorphic transfer. But, when HDTV does get more marketshare, I'm sure they will....
==
==
There are links to sites selling the LD here. The price, I believe, is somwhere in the $110 range. It's a Japanese import LD.
==
BTW, my roommate found this site that should help tell you if you're north or south of DC (at least if you're in an American city).
==
The thing is, code isn't considered free speech because of what it does. It is considered free speech because of how it is written to do what it does. Anyone who has coded anything knows that there are about 10^6786 different ways to write a particular program. These differences are what the judge acknowledged by declaring code to be free speech.
==
I'll see if I can translate this quickly:
==============================
"So you've shut off your cookies, blocked those banner ads, and installed JunkBuster. Feeling secure in your anonymity? Well, Martin Paul at Linuxcare Australia knows a way they can still track you while you surf: By using the HTTP ceche-a-cuntrul[can't really read this correctly]. Hurty hurty schnipp schnipp! It's far more diffused(?) than cookies, and more hard to block too. His article, the Meantime Exploit, will give you a description and a demonstartion." It's a bonus. Merteen's writing is funny and clear. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Welcome to Standard Perunia(?) Team.
===================================
So I couldn't understand it 100 percent. So sue me!
==