You can at least try. After 2001 and Solaris you simply can't say oh well, I will ignore all laws of physics. That makes your plot childish, unplausible and fore the same reason boring.
God, Aliens and the original Star Wars movies were soooooooo boring.
I thought Serenenity was a very good movie, which leaves me more annoyed that like effectively all hollywood SF movies, it had no real concept of astronomy
I really appreciate science realism in movies, but I also enjoy space/sci-fi movies that just have fun instead of sticking to science facts.
Mixing hard science with entertaining narrative is almost impossibly hard due to the fact that well, space really is a bleak, vast, nearly-featureless void. 2001 is the only film I can think of that did this successfully, and swashbuckling tales like Star Wars, Serenity, or Firefly would never work with larger doses of reality.
On a "science realism" note, one nice touch in Firefly was that the space scenes had no sound, since obviously there's no sound in space. They broke with that for Serenity, though.
Another sci-fi story that adds a little hard science to the mix is the anime series Gunbuster. Near-lightspeed travel features prominently in the plot, and - surprise! - the relativistic time effects are actually handled in a fairly realistic fashion. A large part of the plot deals with the emotional hardships of the characters, whose friends back on Earth are aging much more quickly than they are since they frequently travel near light speeds.
It's regarded as one of the greatest anime productions of all time. Sadly, it's currently commercially unavailable in the U.S. although it can be downloaded...
#34. Your "supercomputing" vendor has an AOL email address.
From the press release...
Contact: AMD Teresa Osborne, 512-602-0040 teresa.osborne@amd.com www.amd.com or Cray Inc. Steve Conway, 651-592-7441 sttico@aol.com www.cray.com
Sooooo... if I scrape together a few million bucks and buy a computer from these guys, will I still be able to contact my Cray rep once his 500 FREE TRY AOL NOW HOURS have expired?
I corrupted (well, I *saw* corrupted) a SQL2k database just a couplea weeks ago. It's the first time I'd ever seen it happen. I don't blame it on SQL, I blame it on the bizarre things happening with the disk subsystem (8 spindles running in raid 5 on 3Ware SATA controller). If you tell the controller to write xxx to the disk and it says "ok, done", but it never happened, well, you're gonna have a problem regardless of DB engine.
That's not a bug in the controller! Clearly it was running in "write-only" mode for increased performance. You should see how fast MySQL is when mounted on/dev/null... it's too bad us Windows users have to pay for a fancy controller card for the same privilege.:)
Not being a database admin, I can't comment on the advantages of MSSQL over other SQL servers, but I've heard people say that MSSQL is very resistant to data corruption caused by external factors (I guess they mean, hardware failure or filesystem corruption or the like). Can anybody confirm this?
I've been using SQL Server since Version 6 in 1997. While MSSQL6 itself never crashed, MSSQL6 tended to have some corruption problems if the OS crashed or you had a power outage. Specifically, the unique identifier counters would often get trashed. Then you'd get "duplicate key" errors on inserts somewhere down the line.
I pretty much skipped over MSSQL7.
MSSQL2000? Holy crap, you cannot corrupt these databases. I've never even heard of it happening*. I've even shut the machine down improperly while MSSQL2000 was running a daatabase shrink (on VMWare) and never seen corruption. I just have not found a way to corrupt that sucker short of shutting down the database and taking a hex editor to the data files.
I think MySQL is a great product for what it is but I just have to laugh when I hear about MySQL tables being corrupted.
* OK, I'm sure somebody out there has a story about it happening. I'm sure it can happen. But a lot of my friends are MS developers too. I would say that between us we have about 100 cumulative man-years' worth of MSSQL2000 experience. Corruption I've heard about? Zilch. Nada.
Intel's Pentium-M chips, on the other hand, are still kicking ass on the low-power side of things and outperforming desktop chips running at much greater MHZ.
Apple is more interested in the P-M and its derivatives than the P4 and its derivatives such as the crappy Xeons currently getting their asses handed to them by Opterons.:)
Have you not looked at Mac prices in a while? Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs.
Only if you're trying to match the Macs and PCs up on a raw CPU/GPU performance basis, which makes little sense for the majority of users.
For $500-$700 you can get a nice Mac Mini setup. That includes an operating system and bundled software that's nicer than you'd get on the PC side. And nicer support than you'd get with a lot of PCs at that price level.
If you're a gamer, or really pushing your CPU on a constant basis with rendering or scientific apps or something - yeah, you're going to pay a lot more for an equivalent Mac. But for the majority of users I don't believe Macs are more expensive at all.
In fact, after using PCs my whole life, I picked up a Mini last week. I was impressed at what a value it was. I could have built my own PC for less but it wouldn't have had great bundled software or what most people consider to be the world's best desktop operating system.
The real problem, as I see it, is not that America is becoming anti-science, it's that science is becoming anti-anything-else.
You have a distorted sense of who's interfering with whom, buddy.
On a theoretical level, yes. Science is often anti-religion. A lot of scientific beliefs absolutely contradict a great number of teachings from various religions. In that sense it can be very "anti-religion" at times.
But on a practical level? I don't see science interfering with religion. I can't think of a time in this country when science attempted to intrude upon a house of worship and say "you can't worship this way" or worse, attempt to pass laws to that effect.
Unfortunately the opposite occurs with alarming regularity. The religous right actively tries to interfere with the practice of science; protesting and passing laws against scientific practices and teachings they are not approving of - stem cell research, evolution, abortion (medicine is applied science after all) and so forth.
That is the difference, friend.
It's a practice that's gone on for thousands of years. Look at Galileo and Da Vince getting heat from the church for their teachings. It's been happening ever since man said "hey, there might be something other than religion" and attempted to gain knowledge via means other than self-proclaimed prophets, superstition, and gut feelings.
And the hard drive. And anything else that responds badly to repeated expansion and contraction from such a drastic temperature change.
And let's not forget the condensation that will most likely form on the ice-cold computer after it's removed from the freezer and used in a normal operating environment.
Laptops can't handle anywhere near the amount of storage a desktop can. I'm approaching a terabyte of storage on my main desktop machine (and 200gb on my secondary desktop); my laptop has 30gb of space.
Yeah, but do you need that terabyte of storage at your fingertips all the time?
I have several TB of data (movies, games, music, photos) but the 60GB hard drive on my laptop is just fine. I really only need several hundred megabytes of data for work on a regular basis, plus a few GB of mp3s.
The rest of the data sits on my desktop computer for when I occaisionally need it, although it could just as easily reside on external hard drives sans desktop computer.
For me, the main advantage of my desktop is the dual 19" monitors. But with ~1600x1200 monitors available on laptops these days, that advantage is fading quickly.
Oh, and if you're using Brasso, do it outside. The fumes are pretty noxious. I got a little lightheaded and my room smelled like Brasso for a day. Learn from my mistake.
Alright, so the screen is easily scratchable. Enough with the bitching and finger pointing... what can you do about it?
Try Brasso. It's available in your supermarket and costs $3-$4 for what will amount to a lifetime supply if you're just cleaning your iPod.
I managed to drop my iPod Nano on asphault the day after I got it. The player skidded and bounced on the asphault and had some rather nasty scratches on both sides. Naturally, the player still worked perfectly since it doesn't have any moving parts but it looked like hell. Brasso worked like a charm. Here's what you do...
1. Put a drop or two of Brasso on a soft cloth 2. Use a lot of elbow grease to buff out the scratches. Brasso isn't a magic potion; it's actually a very gentle abrasive. You are effectively resurfacing the iPod so it's going to take a few minutes of work. 3. Ta-da!
Now, since you're effectively resurfacing the iPod, I imagine that there is a finite amount of times you'd want to subject your iPod to this. It will leave your iPod looking great though.
I've tried this on my iPod Nano (front and back) as well as my 3g 20GB iPod. Worked great. I imagine it would work on other models as well with the possible exception of the aluminum iPod Minis since their surface differs from the polycarbonate used on other models. Should work, but I don't know.
HTML Tidy has a special mode for cleaning up Word's crappy HTML export. HTML Tidy is a free command-line tool that is also embedded in a lot of popular HTML editors.
I have seen constructive negative reviews on their site, so in my experience they do a pretty acceptably balanced job. Obviously, relying solely on customer reviews as your sole criteria would be insane, but they can be helpful.
For example, I was all set to buy an external hard drive enclosure from them, but some of the customer reviews noted a known dataloss problem with that enclosure's particular firewire-to-IDE bridge. So I selected another model. Normally I'd have done my homework before buying, but I mistakenly assumed all firewire-to-IDE chips were the same, so the customer reviews saved me.
I don't have a problem with them selectively approving reviews to an extent - otherwise you get the unwashed masses posting unhelpful stuff like "DONT BUY THIS CARD NVIDIA SUX0RZ BUY ATI INSTEAD LOL ps: U FAG".
You definitely have to take the positive reviews with a grain of salt, of course. Just thought I'd mention my experiences because there are sure to be a lot of "omg, cens0rship" posts.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for correcting that. I apologize for the misinformation, and I agree that there should be a "-1, Wrong" flag.:)
Possible Bias? :-)
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Seems like an informative and unbiased article, but I couldn't help but laugh at the author's email address. Especially given the "FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been" jab that the story submitter felt compelled to include.
Why FreeBSD
A quick tour of the BSD alternative
Level: Introductory
Frank Pohlmann (frank@linuxuser.co.uk), U.K. Technical Editor, Linuxuser and Developer
19 Jul 2005
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"In addition to my previous post I'd like to try to gett across another less indentified reason why I think Mac's are not being used by more businesses - the lack of expandability and re-configurability of their machines. You can replace the bits that break, but never upgrade them (apart from HDD and RAM)."
Most upgrades can be achieved by USB/Firewire expansion today. Video capture, sound upgrades, optical drives, more HDD space... these can all be added to the Mac Mini on a plug-and-play basis.
RAM? It's easy to upgrade the Mini's RAM yourself, although you void your warranty. I don't like that policy myself but most pre-built PCs have similar restrictions.
What else would you need to upgrade? The CPU? I don't know anybody that has ever upgraded their CPU on a given system... and I've been in the industry for 7-8 years working at places with hundreds of PCs with "upgradable" CPUs. Upgrading CPUs rarely if ever makes sense because of bus speed limitations. I could theoretically put a 2.2ghz SocketA AthlonXP in my old SocketA Duron box, but why? It would be crippled by the 133mhz bus speed and real-world performance inprovements would be nil.
I can only think of a single area in which the Mac Mini is sorely non-upgradable: video cards. But the Mini is not pitched as a gaming powerhouse anyway, so I don't see this is as a real problem. I mean, my small Honda can't tow a 3,500lb trailer... and sometimes this sucks... but it's not really a "problem" with the Honda, it just wasn't made for that and was not advertised as such.
Re:My iBook died two months ago...
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"Whatever Steve says, I don't believe that binaries will stay Intel/PowerPC for very long."
Try thinking about it in the most practical terms possible.
1. PPC Macs are going to dominate the market for years. The Mac market is going to be 100% PPC-based for another year. After that, PPC Macs will greatly outnumber Intel Macs for 4 or 5 years; possibly longer. Mac owners tend to hold onto their machines for a long time. The hundreds of millions of existing PPC Macs aren't going anywhere.
2. Creating "fat" dual Intel/PPC binaries is easy. With XCode it's only a mouse click away in most scenarios. In fact, I think the latest version of XCode creates dual binaries by default. So it would actually require effort to not create dual binaries, if I'm not mistaken. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
So. What is your reasoning again? Why would Mac developers ignore the majority of their market when supporting them takes no effort? I'm no Apple loyalist; I haven't owned an Apple computer since my IIgs, so if anybody is wary about being burned by a lack of Apple support it's me. But I would have no problem buying a PPC Mac today... in fact, as soon as I have some money I hope to pick up a Mini for testing purposes.
Gentoo: Like Deb, but faster and with none of the overzealousness. POWER TO PYTHON!
I like how your signature contains an implicit criticism of Debian for "overzealousness", immediately followed by "POWER TO PYTHON!" in all caps. Pot, kettle...
If you do not live in the city, rural computer solutions are pricey. My local computer shoppe has 1.6 ghz laptops with no wireless selling for 2000 dollars.
If only there was some sort of digital global computer network with "sites" where you could order a computer (from one of thousands of competing suppliers) and have it mailed to your house.
Slashdot Mirror
You can at least try. After 2001 and Solaris you simply can't say oh well, I will ignore all laws of physics. That makes your plot childish, unplausible and fore the same reason boring.
God, Aliens and the original Star Wars movies were soooooooo boring.
I thought Serenenity was a very good movie, which leaves me more annoyed that like effectively all hollywood SF movies, it had no real concept of astronomy
I really appreciate science realism in movies, but I also enjoy space/sci-fi movies that just have fun instead of sticking to science facts.
Mixing hard science with entertaining narrative is almost impossibly hard due to the fact that well, space really is a bleak, vast, nearly-featureless void. 2001 is the only film I can think of that did this successfully, and swashbuckling tales like Star Wars, Serenity, or Firefly would never work with larger doses of reality.
On a "science realism" note, one nice touch in Firefly was that the space scenes had no sound, since obviously there's no sound in space. They broke with that for Serenity, though.
Another sci-fi story that adds a little hard science to the mix is the anime series Gunbuster. Near-lightspeed travel features prominently in the plot, and - surprise! - the relativistic time effects are actually handled in a fairly realistic fashion. A large part of the plot deals with the emotional hardships of the characters, whose friends back on Earth are aging much more quickly than they are since they frequently travel near light speeds.
It's regarded as one of the greatest anime productions of all time. Sadly, it's currently commercially unavailable in the U.S. although it can be downloaded...
Signs You're Posting Too Quickly #293893...you type #34 instead of #342. Oops. Sorry!
Sign You Invested In The Wrong Supercomputer, #342
#34. Your "supercomputing" vendor has an AOL email address.
From the press release...Sooooo... if I scrape together a few million bucks and buy a computer from these guys, will I still be able to contact my Cray rep once his 500 FREE TRY AOL NOW HOURS have expired?
I corrupted (well, I *saw* corrupted) a SQL2k database just a couplea weeks ago. It's the first time I'd ever seen it happen. I don't blame it on SQL, I blame it on the bizarre things happening with the disk subsystem (8 spindles running in raid 5 on 3Ware SATA controller). If you tell the controller to write xxx to the disk and it says "ok, done", but it never happened, well, you're gonna have a problem regardless of DB engine.
/dev/null... it's too bad us Windows users have to pay for a fancy controller card for the same privilege. :)
That's not a bug in the controller! Clearly it was running in "write-only" mode for increased performance. You should see how fast MySQL is when mounted on
Not being a database admin, I can't comment on the advantages of MSSQL over other SQL servers, but I've heard people say that MSSQL is very resistant to data corruption caused by external factors (I guess they mean, hardware failure or filesystem corruption or the like). Can anybody confirm this?
I've been using SQL Server since Version 6 in 1997. While MSSQL6 itself never crashed, MSSQL6 tended to have some corruption problems if the OS crashed or you had a power outage. Specifically, the unique identifier counters would often get trashed. Then you'd get "duplicate key" errors on inserts somewhere down the line.
I pretty much skipped over MSSQL7.
MSSQL2000? Holy crap, you cannot corrupt these databases. I've never even heard of it happening*. I've even shut the machine down improperly while MSSQL2000 was running a daatabase shrink (on VMWare) and never seen corruption. I just have not found a way to corrupt that sucker short of shutting down the database and taking a hex editor to the data files.
I think MySQL is a great product for what it is but I just have to laugh when I hear about MySQL tables being corrupted.
* OK, I'm sure somebody out there has a story about it happening. I'm sure it can happen. But a lot of my friends are MS developers too. I would say that between us we have about 100 cumulative man-years' worth of MSSQL2000 experience. Corruption I've heard about? Zilch. Nada.
Intel's Pentium-M chips, on the other hand, are still kicking ass on the low-power side of things and outperforming desktop chips running at much greater MHZ.
:)
Apple is more interested in the P-M and its derivatives than the P4 and its derivatives such as the crappy Xeons currently getting their asses handed to them by Opterons.
Have you not looked at Mac prices in a while? Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs.
Only if you're trying to match the Macs and PCs up on a raw CPU/GPU performance basis, which makes little sense for the majority of users.
For $500-$700 you can get a nice Mac Mini setup. That includes an operating system and bundled software that's nicer than you'd get on the PC side. And nicer support than you'd get with a lot of PCs at that price level.
If you're a gamer, or really pushing your CPU on a constant basis with rendering or scientific apps or something - yeah, you're going to pay a lot more for an equivalent Mac. But for the majority of users I don't believe Macs are more expensive at all.
In fact, after using PCs my whole life, I picked up a Mini last week. I was impressed at what a value it was. I could have built my own PC for less but it wouldn't have had great bundled software or what most people consider to be the world's best desktop operating system.
The real problem, as I see it, is not that America is becoming anti-science, it's that science is becoming anti-anything-else.
You have a distorted sense of who's interfering with whom, buddy.
On a theoretical level, yes. Science is often anti-religion. A lot of scientific beliefs absolutely contradict a great number of teachings from various religions. In that sense it can be very "anti-religion" at times.
But on a practical level? I don't see science interfering with religion. I can't think of a time in this country when science attempted to intrude upon a house of worship and say "you can't worship this way" or worse, attempt to pass laws to that effect.
Unfortunately the opposite occurs with alarming regularity. The religous right actively tries to interfere with the practice of science; protesting and passing laws against scientific practices and teachings they are not approving of - stem cell research, evolution, abortion (medicine is applied science after all) and so forth.
That is the difference, friend.
It's a practice that's gone on for thousands of years. Look at Galileo and Da Vince getting heat from the church for their teachings. It's been happening ever since man said "hey, there might be something other than religion" and attempted to gain knowledge via means other than self-proclaimed prophets, superstition, and gut feelings.
And the hard drive. And anything else that responds badly to repeated expansion and contraction from such a drastic temperature change.
And let's not forget the condensation that will most likely form on the ice-cold computer after it's removed from the freezer and used in a normal operating environment.
Laptops can't handle anywhere near the amount of storage a desktop can. I'm approaching a terabyte of storage on my main desktop machine (and 200gb on my secondary desktop); my laptop has 30gb of space.
Yeah, but do you need that terabyte of storage at your fingertips all the time?
I have several TB of data (movies, games, music, photos) but the 60GB hard drive on my laptop is just fine. I really only need several hundred megabytes of data for work on a regular basis, plus a few GB of mp3s.
The rest of the data sits on my desktop computer for when I occaisionally need it, although it could just as easily reside on external hard drives sans desktop computer.
For me, the main advantage of my desktop is the dual 19" monitors. But with ~1600x1200 monitors available on laptops these days, that advantage is fading quickly.
Oh, and if you're using Brasso, do it outside. The fumes are pretty noxious. I got a little lightheaded and my room smelled like Brasso for a day. Learn from my mistake.
Alright, so the screen is easily scratchable. Enough with the bitching and finger pointing... what can you do about it?
Try Brasso. It's available in your supermarket and costs $3-$4 for what will amount to a lifetime supply if you're just cleaning your iPod.
I managed to drop my iPod Nano on asphault the day after I got it. The player skidded and bounced on the asphault and had some rather nasty scratches on both sides. Naturally, the player still worked perfectly since it doesn't have any moving parts but it looked like hell. Brasso worked like a charm. Here's what you do...
1. Put a drop or two of Brasso on a soft cloth
2. Use a lot of elbow grease to buff out the scratches. Brasso isn't a magic potion; it's actually a very gentle abrasive. You are effectively resurfacing the iPod so it's going to take a few minutes of work.
3. Ta-da!
Now, since you're effectively resurfacing the iPod, I imagine that there is a finite amount of times you'd want to subject your iPod to this. It will leave your iPod looking great though.
I've tried this on my iPod Nano (front and back) as well as my 3g 20GB iPod. Worked great. I imagine it would work on other models as well with the possible exception of the aluminum iPod Minis since their surface differs from the polycarbonate used on other models. Should work, but I don't know.
We can only hope that Slashdot's editors will experiment with reading the articles at some point as well.
HTML Tidy has a special mode for cleaning up Word's crappy HTML export. HTML Tidy is a free command-line tool that is also embedded in a lot of popular HTML editors.
HTML Tidy:
http://tidy.sourceforge.net/
HTML Kit (great integration with HTML Tidy; it includes HTML Tidy so you can just grab HTML Kit without grabbing HTML Tidy)
http://www.chami.com/html-kit/
Countless other editors integrate with HTML Tidy as well. Have fun and good luck!
I have seen constructive negative reviews on their site, so in my experience they do a pretty acceptably balanced job. Obviously, relying solely on customer reviews as your sole criteria would be insane, but they can be helpful.
For example, I was all set to buy an external hard drive enclosure from them, but some of the customer reviews noted a known dataloss problem with that enclosure's particular firewire-to-IDE bridge. So I selected another model. Normally I'd have done my homework before buying, but I mistakenly assumed all firewire-to-IDE chips were the same, so the customer reviews saved me.
I don't have a problem with them selectively approving reviews to an extent - otherwise you get the unwashed masses posting unhelpful stuff like "DONT BUY THIS CARD NVIDIA SUX0RZ BUY ATI INSTEAD LOL ps: U FAG".
You definitely have to take the positive reviews with a grain of salt, of course. Just thought I'd mention my experiences because there are sure to be a lot of "omg, cens0rship" posts.
Thank you for correcting that. I apologize for the misinformation, and I agree that there should be a "-1, Wrong" flag. :)
Seems like an informative and unbiased article, but I couldn't help but laugh at the author's email address. Especially given the "FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been" jab that the story submitter felt compelled to include.
Why FreeBSD
A quick tour of the BSD alternative
Level: Introductory
Frank Pohlmann (frank@linuxuser.co.uk), U.K. Technical Editor, Linuxuser and Developer
19 Jul 2005
"In addition to my previous post I'd like to try to gett across another less indentified reason why I think Mac's are not being used by more businesses - the lack of expandability and re-configurability of their machines. You can replace the bits that break, but never upgrade them (apart from HDD and RAM)."
Most upgrades can be achieved by USB/Firewire expansion today. Video capture, sound upgrades, optical drives, more HDD space... these can all be added to the Mac Mini on a plug-and-play basis.
RAM? It's easy to upgrade the Mini's RAM yourself, although you void your warranty. I don't like that policy myself but most pre-built PCs have similar restrictions.
What else would you need to upgrade? The CPU? I don't know anybody that has ever upgraded their CPU on a given system... and I've been in the industry for 7-8 years working at places with hundreds of PCs with "upgradable" CPUs. Upgrading CPUs rarely if ever makes sense because of bus speed limitations. I could theoretically put a 2.2ghz SocketA AthlonXP in my old SocketA Duron box, but why? It would be crippled by the 133mhz bus speed and real-world performance inprovements would be nil.
I can only think of a single area in which the Mac Mini is sorely non-upgradable: video cards. But the Mini is not pitched as a gaming powerhouse anyway, so I don't see this is as a real problem. I mean, my small Honda can't tow a 3,500lb trailer... and sometimes this sucks... but it's not really a "problem" with the Honda, it just wasn't made for that and was not advertised as such.
"Whatever Steve says, I don't believe that binaries will stay Intel/PowerPC for very long."
Try thinking about it in the most practical terms possible.
1. PPC Macs are going to dominate the market for years . The Mac market is going to be 100% PPC-based for another year. After that, PPC Macs will greatly outnumber Intel Macs for 4 or 5 years; possibly longer. Mac owners tend to hold onto their machines for a long time. The hundreds of millions of existing PPC Macs aren't going anywhere.
2. Creating "fat" dual Intel/PPC binaries is easy. With XCode it's only a mouse click away in most scenarios. In fact, I think the latest version of XCode creates dual binaries by default. So it would actually require effort to not create dual binaries, if I'm not mistaken. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
So. What is your reasoning again? Why would Mac developers ignore the majority of their market when supporting them takes no effort? I'm no Apple loyalist; I haven't owned an Apple computer since my IIgs, so if anybody is wary about being burned by a lack of Apple support it's me. But I would have no problem buying a PPC Mac today... in fact, as soon as I have some money I hope to pick up a Mini for testing purposes.
Sign Your Idea May Be A Little Too Complex #984:
It contains the phrase "it would probably be simpler to have wireless headphones fed from a roving tour robot"
Let me be the first to say...
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha WEINUX ahahahaha
During the time leading up to the suit, McDonald's sold more than 10 cups of coffee at that temperature. There were only 700 burn incidents.
So, on average each customer burned himself 70 times on the same cup of coffee? Damn...
I am sitting here laughing so hard that I'm literally crying... ahahahsdlkcslknfvjn... thank you for that post
Gentoo: Like Deb, but faster and with none of the overzealousness. POWER TO PYTHON!
I like how your signature contains an implicit criticism of Debian for "overzealousness", immediately followed by "POWER TO PYTHON!" in all caps. Pot, kettle...
If you do not live in the city, rural computer solutions are pricey. My local computer shoppe has 1.6 ghz laptops with no wireless selling for 2000 dollars.
If only there was some sort of digital global computer network with "sites" where you could order a computer (from one of thousands of competing suppliers) and have it mailed to your house.