I recall reading about someone that updated their server from FC1 to FC2 without using the CDs (not sure if they did it via yum), and had some significant issues with incompatibilities. How reliable have you found this method to be? I've had to occasionally update individual packages, almost always using rpm, and have had no problems, but moving to a new architecture involves an awful lot more -- like new kernels. My dedicated server is about 1500 miles from me, so I imagine you can understand why I'd be wary, even though I'd really like to have the 2.6 kernel active.
Anything that negatively impacts the profitability of the oil industry will not get his support.
And how do you explain requests to OPEC to further boost productivity, which was to (in theory) lower the price of oil? OPEC is pumping oil at near its maximum capabilities. Part of that is a result of instability, but a larger part of it was the increasing demand for oil in the Asian markets, particularly in China. Beijin even took the step of boosting the oil price internally to slow consumption because the price increases were getting out of hand.
Life would be a lot happier if oil could get pushed back to around $35 per barrel -- even for Bush.
Express is one brand under the company Limited Brands, all of whom have lost my business until such time as this policy changes. Their entire brand list includes:
Bath and Body Works
Express
Henri Bendel
The Limited
Victoria's Secret
The White Barn Candle Company
I don't see any e-mail contact for Limited Brands, but the corporate contact information is:
Limited Brands Three Limited Parkway Columbus, OH 43230 614-415-7000
Additionally, to voice your views specifically on the policy at Express, you can drop them a line at talk@expressfashion.com.
These aren't nearly the first robots carrying shotguns. Bomb-disposal robots used by police bomb squads have used shotguns for several years. They're usually used for shooting locks to allow the robot to open doors to get to where the bomb is. I suppose the shotgun could alternately be used to detonate the bomb, though that would be a very expensive use since the robot would likely be destroyed in the blast.
All of these robots are remote-controlled. This is no different in concept from arming a Predator RPV with missiles. You're providing a mechanical extension of a human operator the capacity to do a specific job.
The erosion isn't anything I've seen a lot about, but I read some articles a few months ago looking at potential problems with tidal generators placed relatively close to the beaches interfering with wave patterns and in doing so keeping currents in smaller channels, which would force more energy against the beaches and cause additional erosion.
I'm all for cutting back on power use. At best, though, we would be able to cut energy use by 20% by a massive campaign to replace old refrigerators and light bulbs. I recently went through and replaced all of the bulbs in my house with fluorescents, and my fridge is a little more than a year old, but the main consumers of electricity in my house are the computers. Even though we turn off the monitors and speakers, the systems themselves are drawing a lot of energy on their own. I have a more efficient power supply now than I used to, and my girlfriend is buying a new case for hers, but there's really not much more that we can do with the existing architecture. I have almost talked my mom into buying a new solar unit for her house with her upcoming refinancing, so that will also help, but these steps only go so far.
Electrical use is only going to increase around the world, and the best way to avoid the problems associated with pollution are through nuclear means. There are some cleanup methods available that minimize the amount of highly radioactive wastes, though some policy changes are required to implement them. At some point, maybe fusion will become viable, but for now, I just don't see any other reasonable means. Our opinions seem to differ on this, but I think faster action on implementing nuclear power is better than trying to twist arms.
So you'd rather go with the emissions from gas, coal, and oil plants, the ecological degradation of hydroelectric construction and coal mining, the political bickering from oil, the erosion issues from tidal plants, and the chemical morass from solar and battery production all to avoid something that is a rare occurence?
Simple fact: Universal solar/wind/hydro/tidal is NOT going to happen anytime soon. We don't have the space or the drive for it. Nuclear is hard to push through, but it is FAR easier to do than trying to force reusable energy (which has its own issues) on the world. Nuclear fuel in fission reactions has an energy content of about 2x10^9 kWh/ton of fuel. In less than 2000 tons of fuel, the annual national electricity requirements could be met. Compare this to more than one billion tons of coal being used each year. Moreover, the nuclear fuel could be rebred into useful fuel again, whereas the coal is simply gone once it's been used.
We have the chance to drop emissions to a fraction of their current amounts, but FUD reactions such as yours -- which are all too common -- leave us on our current path.
Yes, it does, but let's see what led up to the explosion.
The Chernobyl reactor was poorly-designed. Any reasonable reactor designer would have been able to say as much: the design allowed each and every one of the safety mechanisms to be disabled at the same time. Worse, construction was shoddy at best: parts were often misaligned by several degrees, and when they needed more concrete but didn't have enough cement, they just added more sand, weakening the resulting mix. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
The #4 reactor was to be shut down for an experiment to determine what would happen in the event of a blackout. The reactor relied on power from other plants to maintain its basic functionality -- office lights, computers, and the cooling systems for the reactors. The reactors fed their own power off to the grid, and other plants were similarly dependent on Chernobyl for their basic functionality. Because of this dependence and the concern for how long they would have before a possible serious failure may occur, they wanted to see how long the inertia of the spinning turbine blades, combined with residual heat from the reactor, would continue to generate power. They thought that perhaps they might gain a little extra time to react in case all power from the grid was somehow lost.
The experiment was apparently the idea of the plant manager, who had never run a nuclear plant before (being an expert in turbines). His chief assistant had come from conventional power plants. Only a couple of high-level assistants had ever had any experience with nuclear power, and then only with small reactors. No approval for the experiment was ever recieved, but they went ahead with it anyway.
On the afternoon of April 26, 1986, the reactor output was lowered to about half of normal output, one turbogenerator was brought offline (the remaining one was to be used for the test), and the emergency core cooling system -- the automatic system that moderates the reaction in a critical situation -- was disconnected. A request soon came in to postpone the experiment until late night so that electricity demand would be lower. This was approved.
At 11pm, the experiment continued. The reactor was brought to its minimum output of 700MW. Above this level, automatic systems keep enough cooling water running through to prevent a runaway reaction. Below it, coolant may not be available in sufficient quantities, and another system will initiate a shutdown. This system was, of course, disconnected.
The output dropped to 30MW, and radioactive decay began producing excess iodine, which contaminated the fuel rods. This contamination interfered in the chain reaction, making it hard to bring the power back up to acceptable levels. The engineers had to either shut down the reactor or try to bring the power levels back up, and shutting down the reactor would mean that the experiment could not continue, so they tried to power it back up. This meant lifting more of the graphite control rods out to allow the reaction to increase by attempting to "burn off" the iodine contamination. Too many were lifted out -- over the initial protests of one of the engineers -- and the real problems began.
As technicians increased the flow of water over the rods, the reaction was moderated by the coolant, which meant less steam. Less steam meant less power, which meant more control rods were lifted. More water was also being pumped to prevent buildups in other areas of the system since not as much steam as expected was being generated. The whole system was balanced on a knife-edge.
Finally, the experiment began. The last safety system, linked to the remaining oeprational turbogenerator and capable of automatic reactor shutdown, was disconnected. Steam to the turbogenerator was blocked, and the turbine began to spin down. With less power, the pumps (already working beyond design capacity) slowed and provided less cooling water to the reactor. Steam, blocked from its normal exit path, built up,
Nuclear is expensive partially because of the costs involved before a shovel is ever plunged into the ground. Westinghouse has a 600MW design called the AP600 (the first design approved by the NRC in years) that is meant to be a universal design, with subtantially the same parts and methods used throughout.
Unfortunately, the cost of producing electricity with the AP600 (4.1 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to about 3 cents/kWh for other methods) was deemed too high, so they're working on the AP1000, which is basically just a scaled-up version but has a target cost range of about 3.0-3.5 cents/kWh. It's hoped that by designing it so that parts can be made universal for many reactors instead of customized for one site, overall costs will be lower, especially after the first few have been built.
Actually, it's $590 billion. Inflation hasn't been that bad.
You might want to look here. I doubt it will assuage your FUD, but it might help others.
It's worth noting that CRAC2 was completed in 1982, meaning that there has been 20+ years of research into reactor design and safety. While it's important to check these kinds of things, it's also important to update the report once in a while. Has this been done?
The Pinto was a deathtrap, but it didn't stop people from building cars.
A lot of things went wrong -- many of them through intentional acts -- at Chernobyl to lead to the explosion, and there were significant design flaws (like the lack of an adequate containment vessel) that would have mitigated many of the effects.
Both are planning on increasing operations in Iraq.
Both are planning on increasing the hunt for terrorists.
Both are promising new spending to pander to voters.
Neither has a clue how to balance the budget.
Both will use litmus tests for their judicial candidates.
Both will have said candidates held up on technical procedures in the Senate.
Both want to push changes to abortion law that probably will not pass, but even if they do will probably not pass judicial muster.
Perhaps you can explain to me where are they so different?
I vote in just about two-and-a-half hours, and I still don't know who will get my vote. Badnarik's foreign policy ideas strike me as terribly idealistic, and the Green Party just doesn't seem to care about the economy. American Independents don't know what freedom of religion is, and the Peace and Freedom Party is running a convicted murderer.
Maybe there will be some nice write-in candidates.
The distinction is non-existent because you can't say where one ends and the other begins. What some call microevolution is really the smaller-scale stages of what the same people refer to as macroevolution. In your example of the fish evolving to the frog, at what point does fish become amphibian? When it can breathe air? When it can walk? When it can leap? Along the way, there are things it takes with it, such as the need to lay eggs in water and to spend the opening stage of its life in the water as it develops.
Re-reading that, it's a little clumsy, but I think you can see where I'm going.
Because at the moment, the populations are not even remotely balanced. One-fifth of the overall needed electoral votes are concentrated in one state. A person could, theoretically, win a handful of states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina) comprising 57% of the US population, and since only about half of the states' populations is needed to provide that candidate with the electoral votes, that means that barely a quarter of the US population would need to support a given candidate for president.
Is it likely? No, it's not. But it's also not entirely outside of the realm of possibility. Most of those states are heavily industrialized, and by appealing to them -- perhaps in the midst of a major economic downturn led by manufacturing, something people on both sides of the aisle fear will happen -- the election could be won by someone of whom the overwhelming majority of voters do not approve.
Right now, there are 51 electoral regions (fifty states plus DC). By changing to a representative structure, it would become 477 regions (435 districts plus 50 states minus 8 states with only one representative, and therefore all three votes to one candidate). Each and every region's preference would have a choice, providing a greater chance for smaller states to have an influence, because if a candidate can no longer count on California's 55 votes but instead only has, say, 38 of those votes locked up, then picking up a few more in Nevada or Minnesota might suddenly become more important.
At the very least, it's a stepping-stone to popular elections, if that is something to ever come about.
True for the moment. This is one of those rare things where I think that a Constitutional amendment should be considered. I'm very hesitant to touch state rights, but perhaps in the case of presidential elections, some universal architecture should be considered.
Except then you potentially screw over the rural people, because it will be easier, cheaper, and more effective to campaign in the large cities.
Better to keep the system, for now at least, and award electoral votes based on the method used by Maine: whoever wins the popular vote gets the two EV's from the Senate presence, and then one EV goes to the person who wins each precint. This makes politicians more accountable to states like California (usually a Democratic stronghold) and Texas (usually a Republican stronghold) that are often ignored in the presidential races.
Of course, additional balance for this would also hinge on the courts being given the work of redistricting instead of letting the parties carve things up for themselves.
Not usually. While a super-eruption may be able to put out more in one eruption than humans can in a single year, these eruptions are few and far between. The last one of this magnitude, IIRC, was Krakatoa, and before that was Taupo, and before that I think was the volcano in the Med in ancient Greek times. However, such eruptions also kick a lot of ash into the air, which causes a cooling effect, so really, some people should be asking for more volcanos to erupt.
BTW, I'm on the side of the skeptics. I just like for everyone to be on the same page.
That much energy isn't likely to make it through as an increase in laser intensity. The circuitry would burn out too fast for significant damage.
Now, the lightning bolt hitting your head might be a different story.
Re:ASP.NET and PHP5 explained
on
Learning PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
How aggressively backwards compatible? It has been my understanding that a LOT of stuff written under PHP4 will not work under PHP5 without significant rewrites, and that there are no intentions of adding in that back capability. I have not yet seriously tried using PHP5 as yet largely because of this. Can you clarify?
The problem with this, of course, is that you can't watch and record at the same time without getting a second box, which costs more money.
I just got the Adelphia DVR a few weeks ago, and while it's not TiVo quality (or storage -- that seems to be really miniscule), it's not too bad for the time-shifting and catching the shows I like. There is much temptation to play with the ports on it (one ethernet, and a few USB), though I don't know what it will report to the company.
If Slashdot is running non-standard code (running a saved page through the W3C validator didn't seem to find anything significant other than a lack of encoding specification so I'm not sure what is non-standard), then isn't that Slashdot's problem, and not Mozilla's?
Well, they realized a little ways out that they forgot the map, and had to come back, but unfortunately one of the crew took this black rock-type thing out of the compass, so they got lost and... well, here we are.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall reading about someone that updated their server from FC1 to FC2 without using the CDs (not sure if they did it via yum), and had some significant issues with incompatibilities. How reliable have you found this method to be? I've had to occasionally update individual packages, almost always using rpm, and have had no problems, but moving to a new architecture involves an awful lot more -- like new kernels. My dedicated server is about 1500 miles from me, so I imagine you can understand why I'd be wary, even though I'd really like to have the 2.6 kernel active.
Anything that negatively impacts the profitability of the oil industry will not get his support.
And how do you explain requests to OPEC to further boost productivity, which was to (in theory) lower the price of oil? OPEC is pumping oil at near its maximum capabilities. Part of that is a result of instability, but a larger part of it was the increasing demand for oil in the Asian markets, particularly in China. Beijin even took the step of boosting the oil price internally to slow consumption because the price increases were getting out of hand.
Life would be a lot happier if oil could get pushed back to around $35 per barrel -- even for Bush.
Express is one brand under the company Limited Brands, all of whom have lost my business until such time as this policy changes. Their entire brand list includes:
I don't see any e-mail contact for Limited Brands, but the corporate contact information is:
Limited Brands
Three Limited Parkway
Columbus, OH 43230
614-415-7000
Additionally, to voice your views specifically on the policy at Express, you can drop them a line at talk@expressfashion.com.
These aren't nearly the first robots carrying shotguns. Bomb-disposal robots used by police bomb squads have used shotguns for several years. They're usually used for shooting locks to allow the robot to open doors to get to where the bomb is. I suppose the shotgun could alternately be used to detonate the bomb, though that would be a very expensive use since the robot would likely be destroyed in the blast.
All of these robots are remote-controlled. This is no different in concept from arming a Predator RPV with missiles. You're providing a mechanical extension of a human operator the capacity to do a specific job.
Microsoft already has competition in the area. VMWare has been around for a long time.
The erosion isn't anything I've seen a lot about, but I read some articles a few months ago looking at potential problems with tidal generators placed relatively close to the beaches interfering with wave patterns and in doing so keeping currents in smaller channels, which would force more energy against the beaches and cause additional erosion.
I'm all for cutting back on power use. At best, though, we would be able to cut energy use by 20% by a massive campaign to replace old refrigerators and light bulbs. I recently went through and replaced all of the bulbs in my house with fluorescents, and my fridge is a little more than a year old, but the main consumers of electricity in my house are the computers. Even though we turn off the monitors and speakers, the systems themselves are drawing a lot of energy on their own. I have a more efficient power supply now than I used to, and my girlfriend is buying a new case for hers, but there's really not much more that we can do with the existing architecture. I have almost talked my mom into buying a new solar unit for her house with her upcoming refinancing, so that will also help, but these steps only go so far.
Electrical use is only going to increase around the world, and the best way to avoid the problems associated with pollution are through nuclear means. There are some cleanup methods available that minimize the amount of highly radioactive wastes, though some policy changes are required to implement them. At some point, maybe fusion will become viable, but for now, I just don't see any other reasonable means. Our opinions seem to differ on this, but I think faster action on implementing nuclear power is better than trying to twist arms.
So you'd rather go with the emissions from gas, coal, and oil plants, the ecological degradation of hydroelectric construction and coal mining, the political bickering from oil, the erosion issues from tidal plants, and the chemical morass from solar and battery production all to avoid something that is a rare occurence?
Simple fact: Universal solar/wind/hydro/tidal is NOT going to happen anytime soon. We don't have the space or the drive for it. Nuclear is hard to push through, but it is FAR easier to do than trying to force reusable energy (which has its own issues) on the world. Nuclear fuel in fission reactions has an energy content of about 2x10^9 kWh/ton of fuel. In less than 2000 tons of fuel, the annual national electricity requirements could be met. Compare this to more than one billion tons of coal being used each year. Moreover, the nuclear fuel could be rebred into useful fuel again, whereas the coal is simply gone once it's been used.
We have the chance to drop emissions to a fraction of their current amounts, but FUD reactions such as yours -- which are all too common -- leave us on our current path.
Yes, it does, but let's see what led up to the explosion.
The Chernobyl reactor was poorly-designed. Any reasonable reactor designer would have been able to say as much: the design allowed each and every one of the safety mechanisms to be disabled at the same time. Worse, construction was shoddy at best: parts were often misaligned by several degrees, and when they needed more concrete but didn't have enough cement, they just added more sand, weakening the resulting mix. It was a disaster waiting to happen.
The #4 reactor was to be shut down for an experiment to determine what would happen in the event of a blackout. The reactor relied on power from other plants to maintain its basic functionality -- office lights, computers, and the cooling systems for the reactors. The reactors fed their own power off to the grid, and other plants were similarly dependent on Chernobyl for their basic functionality. Because of this dependence and the concern for how long they would have before a possible serious failure may occur, they wanted to see how long the inertia of the spinning turbine blades, combined with residual heat from the reactor, would continue to generate power. They thought that perhaps they might gain a little extra time to react in case all power from the grid was somehow lost.
The experiment was apparently the idea of the plant manager, who had never run a nuclear plant before (being an expert in turbines). His chief assistant had come from conventional power plants. Only a couple of high-level assistants had ever had any experience with nuclear power, and then only with small reactors. No approval for the experiment was ever recieved, but they went ahead with it anyway.
On the afternoon of April 26, 1986, the reactor output was lowered to about half of normal output, one turbogenerator was brought offline (the remaining one was to be used for the test), and the emergency core cooling system -- the automatic system that moderates the reaction in a critical situation -- was disconnected. A request soon came in to postpone the experiment until late night so that electricity demand would be lower. This was approved.
At 11pm, the experiment continued. The reactor was brought to its minimum output of 700MW. Above this level, automatic systems keep enough cooling water running through to prevent a runaway reaction. Below it, coolant may not be available in sufficient quantities, and another system will initiate a shutdown. This system was, of course, disconnected.
The output dropped to 30MW, and radioactive decay began producing excess iodine, which contaminated the fuel rods. This contamination interfered in the chain reaction, making it hard to bring the power back up to acceptable levels. The engineers had to either shut down the reactor or try to bring the power levels back up, and shutting down the reactor would mean that the experiment could not continue, so they tried to power it back up. This meant lifting more of the graphite control rods out to allow the reaction to increase by attempting to "burn off" the iodine contamination. Too many were lifted out -- over the initial protests of one of the engineers -- and the real problems began.
As technicians increased the flow of water over the rods, the reaction was moderated by the coolant, which meant less steam. Less steam meant less power, which meant more control rods were lifted. More water was also being pumped to prevent buildups in other areas of the system since not as much steam as expected was being generated. The whole system was balanced on a knife-edge.
Finally, the experiment began. The last safety system, linked to the remaining oeprational turbogenerator and capable of automatic reactor shutdown, was disconnected. Steam to the turbogenerator was blocked, and the turbine began to spin down. With less power, the pumps (already working beyond design capacity) slowed and provided less cooling water to the reactor. Steam, blocked from its normal exit path, built up,
Nuclear is expensive partially because of the costs involved before a shovel is ever plunged into the ground. Westinghouse has a 600MW design called the AP600 (the first design approved by the NRC in years) that is meant to be a universal design, with subtantially the same parts and methods used throughout.
Unfortunately, the cost of producing electricity with the AP600 (4.1 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to about 3 cents/kWh for other methods) was deemed too high, so they're working on the AP1000, which is basically just a scaled-up version but has a target cost range of about 3.0-3.5 cents/kWh. It's hoped that by designing it so that parts can be made universal for many reactors instead of customized for one site, overall costs will be lower, especially after the first few have been built.
Actually, it's $590 billion. Inflation hasn't been that bad.
You might want to look here. I doubt it will assuage your FUD, but it might help others.
It's worth noting that CRAC2 was completed in 1982, meaning that there has been 20+ years of research into reactor design and safety. While it's important to check these kinds of things, it's also important to update the report once in a while. Has this been done?
The Pinto was a deathtrap, but it didn't stop people from building cars.
A lot of things went wrong -- many of them through intentional acts -- at Chernobyl to lead to the explosion, and there were significant design flaws (like the lack of an adequate containment vessel) that would have mitigated many of the effects.
Perhaps you can explain to me where are they so different?
I vote in just about two-and-a-half hours, and I still don't know who will get my vote. Badnarik's foreign policy ideas strike me as terribly idealistic, and the Green Party just doesn't seem to care about the economy. American Independents don't know what freedom of religion is, and the Peace and Freedom Party is running a convicted murderer.
Maybe there will be some nice write-in candidates.
The distinction is non-existent because you can't say where one ends and the other begins. What some call microevolution is really the smaller-scale stages of what the same people refer to as macroevolution. In your example of the fish evolving to the frog, at what point does fish become amphibian? When it can breathe air? When it can walk? When it can leap? Along the way, there are things it takes with it, such as the need to lay eggs in water and to spend the opening stage of its life in the water as it develops.
Re-reading that, it's a little clumsy, but I think you can see where I'm going.
Because at the moment, the populations are not even remotely balanced. One-fifth of the overall needed electoral votes are concentrated in one state. A person could, theoretically, win a handful of states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina) comprising 57% of the US population, and since only about half of the states' populations is needed to provide that candidate with the electoral votes, that means that barely a quarter of the US population would need to support a given candidate for president.
Is it likely? No, it's not. But it's also not entirely outside of the realm of possibility. Most of those states are heavily industrialized, and by appealing to them -- perhaps in the midst of a major economic downturn led by manufacturing, something people on both sides of the aisle fear will happen -- the election could be won by someone of whom the overwhelming majority of voters do not approve.
No, not FUD.
Right now, there are 51 electoral regions (fifty states plus DC). By changing to a representative structure, it would become 477 regions (435 districts plus 50 states minus 8 states with only one representative, and therefore all three votes to one candidate). Each and every region's preference would have a choice, providing a greater chance for smaller states to have an influence, because if a candidate can no longer count on California's 55 votes but instead only has, say, 38 of those votes locked up, then picking up a few more in Nevada or Minnesota might suddenly become more important.
At the very least, it's a stepping-stone to popular elections, if that is something to ever come about.
True for the moment. This is one of those rare things where I think that a Constitutional amendment should be considered. I'm very hesitant to touch state rights, but perhaps in the case of presidential elections, some universal architecture should be considered.
Except then you potentially screw over the rural people, because it will be easier, cheaper, and more effective to campaign in the large cities.
Better to keep the system, for now at least, and award electoral votes based on the method used by Maine: whoever wins the popular vote gets the two EV's from the Senate presence, and then one EV goes to the person who wins each precint. This makes politicians more accountable to states like California (usually a Democratic stronghold) and Texas (usually a Republican stronghold) that are often ignored in the presidential races.
Of course, additional balance for this would also hinge on the courts being given the work of redistricting instead of letting the parties carve things up for themselves.
Not usually. While a super-eruption may be able to put out more in one eruption than humans can in a single year, these eruptions are few and far between. The last one of this magnitude, IIRC, was Krakatoa, and before that was Taupo, and before that I think was the volcano in the Med in ancient Greek times. However, such eruptions also kick a lot of ash into the air, which causes a cooling effect, so really, some people should be asking for more volcanos to erupt.
BTW, I'm on the side of the skeptics. I just like for everyone to be on the same page.
CentOS by cAos has done the same thing, and also has a distro based on RH7.3.
That much energy isn't likely to make it through as an increase in laser intensity. The circuitry would burn out too fast for significant damage.
Now, the lightning bolt hitting your head might be a different story.
How aggressively backwards compatible? It has been my understanding that a LOT of stuff written under PHP4 will not work under PHP5 without significant rewrites, and that there are no intentions of adding in that back capability. I have not yet seriously tried using PHP5 as yet largely because of this. Can you clarify?
The problem with this, of course, is that you can't watch and record at the same time without getting a second box, which costs more money.
I just got the Adelphia DVR a few weeks ago, and while it's not TiVo quality (or storage -- that seems to be really miniscule), it's not too bad for the time-shifting and catching the shows I like. There is much temptation to play with the ports on it (one ethernet, and a few USB), though I don't know what it will report to the company.
If Slashdot is running non-standard code (running a saved page through the W3C validator didn't seem to find anything significant other than a lack of encoding specification so I'm not sure what is non-standard), then isn't that Slashdot's problem, and not Mozilla's?
C++ does fix some dumb things in C, but when it comes to shooting yourself in the foot, C++ is like an AK-47 while C is more like a .38 special.
This should be good news to the NRA's development division...
Well, they realized a little ways out that they forgot the map, and had to come back, but unfortunately one of the crew took this black rock-type thing out of the compass, so they got lost and... well, here we are.