Should download time really count towards install time? If so I'm counting delivery time from MS. I can download a distro faster than I can go purchase Win7, esp since it hasn't been released yet. That or I still download it (legal RC of course) and cancels out the download time for (your-favorite-distro).
Screw Linux, I just want Sonic to open up a Drive-in in the North East close to where I live. I'm sick of seeing their ads with no Sonic within 60 miles, and then its only one, next closest is over 100 miles away, in a different direction.
I believe Ryan on "The Office" shares your feelings. To be exact I believe it was "I wish my iPod could make phone calls. No I don't want an iPhone. I know what an iPhone is." Season 5 episode 21 if I'm correct. And I think it's a pretty common sentiment.
And how much CO2 is emitted digging and transporting coal to plants? If nuclear becomes prominent enough, the CO2 emissions form mining and manufacturing the fuel elements can drop to (near) ZERO. Charge the electric trucks with nuke power to mine and haul the ore to the processing plant that runs on nuke power. So 0+0+....+0=ZERO. Try that with something else. Solar and wind have the disadvantage of not having the ability to be always on in all weather conditions in all areas of the world.
<sarcasm>You're right, I forgot to mention that it is commonly accepted. </sarcasm>
Many words have been added to dictionaries that are still not considered to be grammatically correct. Besides, did you miss the part of my post where I applauded your usage? It is the perfect example of how a word can still not be considered grammatically correct, but be well on its way, thus proving your point of how cultures change and adapt.
Just as grammar and spellings change over time (i.e. England and U.S have diverged greatly over the past few centuries), our outlook on certain technologies change just as fast, if not faster. A mere half century ago vacuum tubes were still in heavy use and used to build early computers. Now I doubt you could find many people in the work force who could tell you how to make a vacuum tube, let alone build a computer using them. Does it mean people were smarter 50 years ago? No, it just means we apply the brain power to different things.
Next time, don't get so defensive when someone applauds you and agrees with you.
Look at your link again. Specifically the part of it that looks like this : */submission/* . Notice how that looks compared to the address for this story that looks like */story/*
There's no indication that any of this is making anyone substantially stupider.
I see what you did there. You used the commonly accepted "stupider" in place of the grammatically correct "more stupid" to help prove your point to the masses. Intentional or not, bravo.
Sir, I believe you are mistaken. There obviously must have been at least one virus at some point for a Mac otherwise why would Apple include virus and malware protection in Snow Leopard. Only now will none exist since Apple has deemed it so by not allowing the rogue virus to infect their hardware.:P
Yes, I will admit my numbers are likely a bit off when breeders are taken out of the picture. However, one thing that is commonly missed and you bring up is the misconception that breeders are required in order to reprocess. The breeder just makes the fissile material. The fuel needs to be taken out and chemically separated in order to use that newly created fuel. In the separation process they also separate out the uranium. Now why can't we take out spent fuel from burner reactors, and reprocess it in order to use more of the useful uranium thats still left in it. Spent fuel is no where close to being fully spent. Reclaim the fissile uranium left in burners and the time estimates rise dramatically. And no new technology is required. Technology already exists to separate uranium from spent fuel (see you breeder example) and we also have the technology to further enrich that uranium if desired. So yes I may be off and spreading false information, but you are too.
See above post about Uranium being so readily available they stopped prospecting in the peak of nuclear weapon manufacturing. Also your projection numbers neglect the potential to be gained from reprocessing the misnamed "spent" fuel. There is still plenty of fissile Uranium in the so called spent fuel, it just needs to be reconfigured to create a critical pile again. So now you have every ton of spent fuel available again. Only reason we don't already do that is because of a bunch of politicians, but that's a whole separate discussion.
You mine for a year, it lasts you decades. You mine coal for a year, you have to repeat it year after year. Having to mine the fuel is the weakest argument against nuclear. You'll still have to drill for oil or mine coal.
Yes, there is natural background radiation that one would get gardening. But exposure from the effluent of a coal plant is not part of natural background. So the dose attributed to the coal plant is less than background, but more than is necessary. I could equally argue that a sailor on a nuclear submarine will receive less exposure in a year than you would sitting where ever it is you live.
Alpha particles can do significant damage if the alpha particle producing decay occurs inside the body. He does know what he's talking about. So play with alpha producing particles all day long, but make sure you clean those hands good before you eat and ingest them. It's also not recommend to swallow uranium, but go for it if you'd like.
And last I checked, a filter was not 100% effective, otherwise it wouldn't be a filter, it would be solid metal.
Thats great for U-238, but there are other isotopes. The thing is, coal puts them in the air, nuclear keeps them contained.
And you missed the part about how the US has large stockpiles of Uranium. More than enough to power us through the next few millenium, more is we use breeder reactors.
I don't object to burning less coal, I object to burning coal. It puts Uranium and Thorium into the air. Population radiation exposure is greater form a coal fired plant than a nuclear plant.
Why can't we hold Apple to the same standard as M$? Everyone expects full legacy support for their 15 year-old 8-bit code to work in Vista or Win7 64-bit and yell and scream if they can't do it with having to do a rewrite. Frankly, I'd prefer it is M$ did drop the support for the legacy garbage that my company keeps around and force them to develop some decent functioning apps. Just had to point out the double standard though.
So yes it would be considered stealing of company time. Not to mention the other issues of circumventing security in order to download and install the program in order to download said music. That normally would result in a permanent leave of absence with no pay. This has been the case at the three government sites I have worked at where such things as even streaming a free broadcast radio station is blocked, if you're even lucky enough to have an internet connection on the computer you work at.
Wasn't aware they weren't quad band. So they update the hardware when they start selling them unlocked. Can't increase the cost that much. Three years ago I got a free dumb phone that's quad band.
Slashdot Mirror
Should download time really count towards install time? If so I'm counting delivery time from MS. I can download a distro faster than I can go purchase Win7, esp since it hasn't been released yet. That or I still download it (legal RC of course) and cancels out the download time for (your-favorite-distro).
You mean people will complain about stupid and irrelevant shit, regardless of what is said (i.e. my previous post).
I have no ears and still wear glasses you insensitive clod! A little thing called elastic holds them to my head.
Screw Linux, I just want Sonic to open up a Drive-in in the North East close to where I live. I'm sick of seeing their ads with no Sonic within 60 miles, and then its only one, next closest is over 100 miles away, in a different direction.
You still have a 3D TV? I thought everyone had those new fangled "flat" TV's by now.
I believe Ryan on "The Office" shares your feelings. To be exact I believe it was "I wish my iPod could make phone calls. No I don't want an iPhone. I know what an iPhone is." Season 5 episode 21 if I'm correct. And I think it's a pretty common sentiment.
Exactly. This is one of those few cases where "Get those damn kids off my lawn" and "Not in my back yard" have the same meaning.
And dare I say it might be the one instance that pro-lifers may be FOR abortions?
And how much CO2 is emitted digging and transporting coal to plants? If nuclear becomes prominent enough, the CO2 emissions form mining and manufacturing the fuel elements can drop to (near) ZERO. Charge the electric trucks with nuke power to mine and haul the ore to the processing plant that runs on nuke power. So 0+0+....+0=ZERO. Try that with something else. Solar and wind have the disadvantage of not having the ability to be always on in all weather conditions in all areas of the world.
You used the commonly accepted "stupider"
stupider has been in common use for some time
<sarcasm>You're right, I forgot to mention that it is commonly accepted. </sarcasm>
Many words have been added to dictionaries that are still not considered to be grammatically correct. Besides, did you miss the part of my post where I applauded your usage? It is the perfect example of how a word can still not be considered grammatically correct, but be well on its way, thus proving your point of how cultures change and adapt.
Just as grammar and spellings change over time (i.e. England and U.S have diverged greatly over the past few centuries), our outlook on certain technologies change just as fast, if not faster. A mere half century ago vacuum tubes were still in heavy use and used to build early computers. Now I doubt you could find many people in the work force who could tell you how to make a vacuum tube, let alone build a computer using them. Does it mean people were smarter 50 years ago? No, it just means we apply the brain power to different things.
Next time, don't get so defensive when someone applauds you and agrees with you.
Look at your link again. Specifically the part of it that looks like this : */submission/* . Notice how that looks compared to the address for this story that looks like */story/*
There's no indication that any of this is making anyone substantially stupider.
I see what you did there. You used the commonly accepted "stupider" in place of the grammatically correct "more stupid" to help prove your point to the masses. Intentional or not, bravo.
Sir, I believe you are mistaken. There obviously must have been at least one virus at some point for a Mac otherwise why would Apple include virus and malware protection in Snow Leopard. Only now will none exist since Apple has deemed it so by not allowing the rogue virus to infect their hardware. :P
Yes, I will admit my numbers are likely a bit off when breeders are taken out of the picture. However, one thing that is commonly missed and you bring up is the misconception that breeders are required in order to reprocess. The breeder just makes the fissile material. The fuel needs to be taken out and chemically separated in order to use that newly created fuel. In the separation process they also separate out the uranium. Now why can't we take out spent fuel from burner reactors, and reprocess it in order to use more of the useful uranium thats still left in it. Spent fuel is no where close to being fully spent. Reclaim the fissile uranium left in burners and the time estimates rise dramatically. And no new technology is required. Technology already exists to separate uranium from spent fuel (see you breeder example) and we also have the technology to further enrich that uranium if desired. So yes I may be off and spreading false information, but you are too.
See above post about Uranium being so readily available they stopped prospecting in the peak of nuclear weapon manufacturing. Also your projection numbers neglect the potential to be gained from reprocessing the misnamed "spent" fuel. There is still plenty of fissile Uranium in the so called spent fuel, it just needs to be reconfigured to create a critical pile again. So now you have every ton of spent fuel available again. Only reason we don't already do that is because of a bunch of politicians, but that's a whole separate discussion.
You mine for a year, it lasts you decades. You mine coal for a year, you have to repeat it year after year. Having to mine the fuel is the weakest argument against nuclear. You'll still have to drill for oil or mine coal.
Yes, there is natural background radiation that one would get gardening. But exposure from the effluent of a coal plant is not part of natural background. So the dose attributed to the coal plant is less than background, but more than is necessary. I could equally argue that a sailor on a nuclear submarine will receive less exposure in a year than you would sitting where ever it is you live.
the numbers I've seen don't support the idea that there is enough Uranium in the ground to last
In the ground maybe not, but lets not forget the enormous amount that has already been mined and not used.
Alpha particles can do significant damage if the alpha particle producing decay occurs inside the body. He does know what he's talking about. So play with alpha producing particles all day long, but make sure you clean those hands good before you eat and ingest them. It's also not recommend to swallow uranium, but go for it if you'd like.
And last I checked, a filter was not 100% effective, otherwise it wouldn't be a filter, it would be solid metal.
Thats great for U-238, but there are other isotopes. The thing is, coal puts them in the air, nuclear keeps them contained. And you missed the part about how the US has large stockpiles of Uranium. More than enough to power us through the next few millenium, more is we use breeder reactors.
I don't object to burning less coal, I object to burning coal. It puts Uranium and Thorium into the air. Population radiation exposure is greater form a coal fired plant than a nuclear plant.
I don't live in Kansas but I still know that evolution is a flat out lie. I know because the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me in his gospel.
Why can't we hold Apple to the same standard as M$? Everyone expects full legacy support for their 15 year-old 8-bit code to work in Vista or Win7 64-bit and yell and scream if they can't do it with having to do a rewrite. Frankly, I'd prefer it is M$ did drop the support for the legacy garbage that my company keeps around and force them to develop some decent functioning apps. Just had to point out the double standard though.
I'll just put Windows 7 onto my MacBook instead of Snow Leopard.
There is a special place in Hell for people that put that abomination on good computers.
Thats why he's putting it on a MacBook and not a good computer....
So yes it would be considered stealing of company time. Not to mention the other issues of circumventing security in order to download and install the program in order to download said music. That normally would result in a permanent leave of absence with no pay. This has been the case at the three government sites I have worked at where such things as even streaming a free broadcast radio station is blocked, if you're even lucky enough to have an internet connection on the computer you work at.
Wasn't aware they weren't quad band. So they update the hardware when they start selling them unlocked. Can't increase the cost that much. Three years ago I got a free dumb phone that's quad band.