God, I would kill for Old Peculier to be on tap at any bar. Unfortunately, most bars only have the big beers, so I stick to brewpubs and such where I can get good beer.
Actually, Old Peculier is one of my favorite beers, and I regularly get it at the grocery store. When I am not drinking my own brew, I usually like most micro-brew IPAs (I am a hophead junky) - right now I am trying a Steam Pumper IPA made by a brewery in portland (I forget their name).
I also like most of Deschutes' beers, Idaho Brewing Company's, Moose Drool, Guinness, some of Red Hook's products (not their hefeweizen, though), Tablerock (local brewery) Hopzilla, Dr. Hops, etc. I basically like to try any microbrew I can get my hands on.
Beers I don't like: bud, miller, coors, ranier, hamms, fosters, labatts, etc.
Basicaly I don't like most of the filtered down, crystal clear, sorry excuses for beers. After you charcoal filter beer that many times to get it so clear, they lose a lot of flavor, and the hops are pretty much nonexistant in the mass swill beers.
I always like how sometimes I see things like "imported Hops" on boxes of Michelob, etc. Like they are special. I can go buy imported or domestic hops anywhere... now if only i could taste the imported hops they put in...:)
Yes, you are very correct. Anyone that has looked at an old plot of land that is in metes and bounds can see this. They all go off a given landmark, but they are not 100% exact.
There is now software that can help plot your land on a map from metes and bounds, but it is too bad they still use this ancient system when GPS is available.
I feel sorry for you because you just called Molson a real beer. While I will grant you that perhaps all Molsons are better than BudMillerCoors, none of them are real bears as far as I am concerned. Oh, they do contain alcohol, but light lagers such as these bare very little resemblance to a good beer.
Surely Canada has many microbrews that make good beer, no? (or should I say eh?)
Yes I am retarded. I mean TWICE the price, not HALF the price.
and now I will wait for two minutes to pass before I am alowed to submit this comment... doo deee dooo.... [whistles].... hhmm mmm hmmmm mmmm.... doo deee dooo dee dooo.... hhhmmm.. hmmmm. mmm.... [tapping pencil on desk]..... there that should be two minutes.
ahhh.. yes... Statistical Multiplexing rears its ugly head.
I don't think I would pay $80 for a 3Mb link, but if I needed that much bandwidth I sure would. Seems like a good deal to me. That more than 10 times what I see now from my cable modem, and only half the price.
Robots don't have to do things for themselves. According to dictionary.com:
robot: 1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
Hell yeah. There is something about imagining terrorists in a cave watching a robot that "just doesn't give a f**k" turn and point it's 12 gauge shotgun at you and fire. They may kill the robot, but we can just build more. The robots are fearless and i think it is sweet.
That being said, as a caver myself, I could not imaging designing a robot to go into caves. I am sure Afganistan caves are different than the ones here (northwest US), but the caves here would be impossible for any track vehicle to operate in. They would drop of large cliffs, get stuck in water, would need to be able to scale very steep surfaces, and jump from rock to rock, etc.
ALghough the Afgan caves sound like they are more like dug out bunkers. I am sure the US military knows WTF they are doing.
Yes, I know you were being funny, but I have seen a 12" hard drive. It was at a computer museum, built by Winchester (the gun people). I think they used it in an early space shuttle for NASA. It was the largest hard drive I had ever seen. May have even been bigger than 12 inches.
I think this guy is wrong on several accounts, though it was an interesting read. For example:
After 20 years of speed and capacity improvements, the computer just doesn't seem any brighter or smarter than it used to. And that needs to change.
What? So the computer doesn't seem any smarter than it was in 1982? Uhh.. not sure how to respond to this, other than to state the obivous. In 1982, GUIs were pretty much non-existant, the OSes WERE dumb (no auto-detect, no learning), etc. This statement is purely incorrect. On to the next:
Linux desktop interfaces provides little that is new, and are dismissed as copies of Windows by the undeducated consumer who does not realize the value of the Linux underpinnings hidden behind the scenes. Nobody wants a copy, they want something original, and that means a radical departure from the desktop analogy.
I disagree. I think businesses and those who want productivity DO want a copy. All GUIs are copies of each other in some way or another. There is an unpublished standard of GUIs that is adheared to somewhat, and copies mean less learning of new things. I would like something revolutionary and new, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.
The apple, on the other hand, had simplicity on it's side: one keyboard (maybe even a mouse) and a single flashing cursor on the command line. The concept that impresses people is that with this one continuously flashing entrypoint into the computer (awaiting input) is that even if you left it on for 2,000 years you had the idea that the machine was waiting patiently for your input - the concept that you were communicating with a machinentity that was trying to understand you.
I never found the flashing cursor of a prompt that fascinating. If it was a better way to do things, it would have stayed around and people would have preferred it. How can one advocate a completely new GUI yet cherrish the CLI? Computers are meant to sit there and wait for you, but a prompt hardly menas the machine is "trying to understand you" - if anything it is dull and more machine like than any GUI.
Re:My possible flamebait...
on
Future of Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Well, it's actually a republic, not really a true democracy.
Reading too much in to Wi-Fi.
on
Future of Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think this article reads too much into current Wi-Fi. All these people say that this and this needs to be done for Wi-Fi for it to grow, but it is growing at a furious pace already.
I think they overestimate what the current Wi-Fi is for. It is so limited, than market demand will certainly open up new avenues for wireless networking. This is how the tech industry is. Don't expect to be buying the same ol' 802.11b technology that you use today in three years - it won't happen. We always have new stuff.
That's what I hate about articles like this - they always state all the things wrong with a technology that we already know about, and they forget that when the demand rises for high-scalability and secure networks, then something will come to the rescue. If we can't get more bandwidth from the FCC, then they will have to figure out someway to get more out of the bandwidth.
I use Wi-Fi for what it is made for TODAY: medium to small networks where security is not paramount and mobility is.
And I, for one, will watch the great economy work and create new solutions as people are willing and needing to buy them.
I see BSOD's on Win2k all the time, Win2k Pro and Win2k Server/ Advanced Server. There are a couple of easy ways to do it if you search on Google, but when I see it, it is because of my own doing (i.e. not following directions).
I have seen Win2k BSOD when explorer froze, when I plugged in 75 hard disks at once (JBODs), and when working the IO really hard as well.
Still, it is better than NT, but still not perfect.
Based purely on my own experience, Windows does decay quite a bit faster than Linux - but I don't think it's mainly the OS's fault:
It's mainly the users and the applications. There are so MANY applications for Windows out there that want to put an icon on your descktop, in your system tray, in your start menu, etc. It is no wonder when the decay takes place. All these applications do their own thing to Windows.
Then, on top of that, you have many, many, many bad installers. They remove some files, sure, but rarely do they get rid of everything, including registry entries.
Linux has a bit different type of users, and most of the software made for linux is by people who hate "Take-over-your-system-ware" sofware. It also doesn't have the central registry system like Windows. Sure it will have it's problems, but right now it does not. More users and more bad or poorly written apps will cause bloat and decay.
So, as usual, we must blaim the users and the applications for software decay for the most part. The OS should do some cleanup as well, but gone are the days when uninstalling mean deleting the directory it was installed to.
Holy crikes. If you can't figure that one out.... man.
I can set a static IP address on a printer without even looking at the control panel. And there really is nothing to do if you have it setup with DHCP or BOOTP!
Slashdot Mirror
God, I would kill for Old Peculier to be on tap at any bar. Unfortunately, most bars only have the big beers, so I stick to brewpubs and such where I can get good beer.
Actually, Old Peculier is one of my favorite beers, and I regularly get it at the grocery store. When I am not drinking my own brew, I usually like most micro-brew IPAs (I am a hophead junky) - right now I am trying a Steam Pumper IPA made by a brewery in portland (I forget their name).
:)
I also like most of Deschutes' beers, Idaho Brewing Company's, Moose Drool, Guinness, some of Red Hook's products (not their hefeweizen, though), Tablerock (local brewery) Hopzilla, Dr. Hops, etc. I basically like to try any microbrew I can get my hands on.
Beers I don't like: bud, miller, coors, ranier, hamms, fosters, labatts, etc.
Basicaly I don't like most of the filtered down, crystal clear, sorry excuses for beers. After you charcoal filter beer that many times to get it so clear, they lose a lot of flavor, and the hops are pretty much nonexistant in the mass swill beers.
I always like how sometimes I see things like "imported Hops" on boxes of Michelob, etc. Like they are special. I can go buy imported or domestic hops anywhere... now if only i could taste the imported hops they put in...
Yes, you are very correct. Anyone that has looked at an old plot of land that is in metes and bounds can see this. They all go off a given landmark, but they are not 100% exact.
There is now software that can help plot your land on a map from metes and bounds, but it is too bad they still use this ancient system when GPS is available.
Nice reference. Let the Mighty Ducks all teach us a very important lesson!
I feel sorry for you because you just called Molson a real beer. While I will grant you that perhaps all Molsons are better than BudMillerCoors, none of them are real bears as far as I am concerned. Oh, they do contain alcohol, but light lagers such as these bare very little resemblance to a good beer.
Surely Canada has many microbrews that make good beer, no? (or should I say eh?)
Yes I am retarded. I mean TWICE the price, not HALF the price.
and now I will wait for two minutes to pass before I am alowed to submit this comment... doo deee dooo.... [whistles].... hhmm mmm hmmmm mmmm.... doo deee dooo dee dooo.... hhhmmm.. hmmmm. mmm.... [tapping pencil on desk]..... there that should be two minutes.
ahhh.. yes... Statistical Multiplexing rears its ugly head.
I don't think I would pay $80 for a 3Mb link, but if I needed that much bandwidth I sure would. Seems like a good deal to me. That more than 10 times what I see now from my cable modem, and only half the price.
Robots don't have to do things for themselves. According to dictionary.com:
robot: 1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
mmmmmm...... baclava.... mmmmmmmm.... I love that stuff.
The robots would not use the GPS in the cave, obviously. They do have other means of navigation than from satellites, you know.
How long before we see lines of robots armed with shotguns and tear gas herding protestors, or quashing riots? Good or bad, you decide.
That all depends...
If we have the robots on our side, good.
If the robots are on the other side, bad... very bad!
Hell yeah. There is something about imagining terrorists in a cave watching a robot that "just doesn't give a f**k" turn and point it's 12 gauge shotgun at you and fire. They may kill the robot, but we can just build more. The robots are fearless and i think it is sweet.
That being said, as a caver myself, I could not imaging designing a robot to go into caves. I am sure Afganistan caves are different than the ones here (northwest US), but the caves here would be impossible for any track vehicle to operate in. They would drop of large cliffs, get stuck in water, would need to be able to scale very steep surfaces, and jump from rock to rock, etc.
ALghough the Afgan caves sound like they are more like dug out bunkers. I am sure the US military knows WTF they are doing.
Jesus Christ. Read the parent to whom I replied to. He asked for competitors of hp's PRINTERS. Please remove your head from your anus.
Remeber when HP was going to buy Price Waterhouse Cooper a year or two ago?
HP wanted to buy it for 17-18 Billion.
IBM will now be buying it for 1/5 of that.
Here is the link if no one remembers.
What a mistake that would have been!
Yes, I know this. Canon does not make all the engines, however. I know which models have Canon engines and which do not.
I always thought it was funny that HP bought their engines from a competitor. Without Canon, many of their products would not exist.
HP does write the firmware for their printers, however. I do not consider that a good thing based on recent experiences.
Yes, I know you were being funny, but I have seen a 12" hard drive. It was at a computer museum, built by Winchester (the gun people). I think they used it in an early space shuttle for NASA. It was the largest hard drive I had ever seen. May have even been bigger than 12 inches.
Lexmark and Canon are solid competitors. Samsung is also a newcomer to the field. There are many other options than HP.
I think this guy is wrong on several accounts, though it was an interesting read. For example:
After 20 years of speed and capacity improvements, the computer just doesn't seem any brighter or smarter than it used to. And that needs to change.
What? So the computer doesn't seem any smarter than it was in 1982? Uhh.. not sure how to respond to this, other than to state the obivous. In 1982, GUIs were pretty much non-existant, the OSes WERE dumb (no auto-detect, no learning), etc. This statement is purely incorrect. On to the next:
Linux desktop interfaces provides little that is new, and are dismissed as copies of Windows by the undeducated consumer who does not realize the value of the Linux underpinnings hidden behind the scenes. Nobody wants a copy, they want something original, and that means a radical departure from the desktop analogy.
I disagree. I think businesses and those who want productivity DO want a copy. All GUIs are copies of each other in some way or another. There is an unpublished standard of GUIs that is adheared to somewhat, and copies mean less learning of new things. I would like something revolutionary and new, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.
The apple, on the other hand, had simplicity on it's side: one keyboard (maybe even a mouse) and a single flashing cursor on the command line. The concept that impresses people is that with this one continuously flashing entrypoint into the computer (awaiting input) is that even if you left it on for 2,000 years you had the idea that the machine was waiting patiently for your input - the concept that you were communicating with a machinentity that was trying to understand you.
I never found the flashing cursor of a prompt that fascinating. If it was a better way to do things, it would have stayed around and people would have preferred it. How can one advocate a completely new GUI yet cherrish the CLI? Computers are meant to sit there and wait for you, but a prompt hardly menas the machine is "trying to understand you" - if anything it is dull and more machine like than any GUI.
Well, it's actually a republic, not really a true democracy.
I think this article reads too much into current Wi-Fi. All these people say that this and this needs to be done for Wi-Fi for it to grow, but it is growing at a furious pace already.
I think they overestimate what the current Wi-Fi is for. It is so limited, than market demand will certainly open up new avenues for wireless networking. This is how the tech industry is. Don't expect to be buying the same ol' 802.11b technology that you use today in three years - it won't happen. We always have new stuff.
That's what I hate about articles like this - they always state all the things wrong with a technology that we already know about, and they forget that when the demand rises for high-scalability and secure networks, then something will come to the rescue. If we can't get more bandwidth from the FCC, then they will have to figure out someway to get more out of the bandwidth.
I use Wi-Fi for what it is made for TODAY: medium to small networks where security is not paramount and mobility is.
And I, for one, will watch the great economy work and create new solutions as people are willing and needing to buy them.
I see BSOD's on Win2k all the time, Win2k Pro and Win2k Server/ Advanced Server. There are a couple of easy ways to do it if you search on Google, but when I see it, it is because of my own doing (i.e. not following directions).
I have seen Win2k BSOD when explorer froze, when I plugged in 75 hard disks at once (JBODs), and when working the IO really hard as well.
Still, it is better than NT, but still not perfect.
Based purely on my own experience, Windows does decay quite a bit faster than Linux - but I don't think it's mainly the OS's fault:
It's mainly the users and the applications. There are so MANY applications for Windows out there that want to put an icon on your descktop, in your system tray, in your start menu, etc. It is no wonder when the decay takes place. All these applications do their own thing to Windows.
Then, on top of that, you have many, many, many bad installers. They remove some files, sure, but rarely do they get rid of everything, including registry entries.
Linux has a bit different type of users, and most of the software made for linux is by people who hate "Take-over-your-system-ware" sofware. It also doesn't have the central registry system like Windows. Sure it will have it's problems, but right now it does not. More users and more bad or poorly written apps will cause bloat and decay.
So, as usual, we must blaim the users and the applications for software decay for the most part. The OS should do some cleanup as well, but gone are the days when uninstalling mean deleting the directory it was installed to.
Well, that was OS/2, before Microsoft screwed IBM and went behind their back.
Clifford used to be a puppy. In fact, he was the runt of the litter.
Now, Clifford is a Big Red Dog, and guess who's laughing now!
Holy crikes. If you can't figure that one out.... man.
I can set a static IP address on a printer without even looking at the control panel. And there really is nothing to do if you have it setup with DHCP or BOOTP!