Certainly not less that the whole of the UK but most in the UK live in and very near to cities. More that half of the US lives outside of cities. Even near our cities the US is FAR less densely populated. For example Los Angeles county has a population density of around 2500 people per square mile. The Greater London area has a population density of around 12,000 people per square mile. That is a substantial difference. Sometimes the definition of the Greater London area is expanded to include an additional 5658 square miles of rural countryside with a population of only 1-2 million additional people. Of course that land with a population density of less than 300 people per square mile is hardly a "city" or metropolitan area and is mostly used to artificially lower the population density of Greater London.
I have never been to London but I know many people from the UK and I have several friends that have traveled there. They all report that the quality of public transport outside of major urban areas is of poor quality. Sometimes just one bus serving an entire village.
In light of this information I don't think your position is very persuasive.
This game is all about virtual beer pong. What is the most popular non-video game on campus? Beer pong. I bet there will be game modes that easily simulate beer pong. Maybe a secret hidden game as well.
All of the great programming is still on. It just moved to specialty channels. The folks at Discovery figured out that they could put all the shows together into themes and then dedicate entire channels to them. When Discovery first started they had one channel. Now they have eleven: Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Health, Travel Channel, Discovery Kids, Discovery Times, The Science Channel, Discovery Home, Military Channel and the Crown jewel Discovery HD. I get them all for about $5 a month. You should check it out before posting second hand mis-information.
You are missing the point. The whole point is that GSM was developed in Europe well AFTER cell phones were in widespread use in the US with a different technology. That is generally what happens. Cell phones were in widespread use here in the US. A NEWER, better communications standard was developed in Europe using the lessons learned in the US. The US used APMS and then D-AMPS and had a huge investment in the existing technology. Thus the US would then have to tear down it's existing infrastructure and rebuild using the new standard. That is why we have different standards. Of course most under informed Europeans just go directly to Anti-American mode and start complaining about how the US has to be "special" and "different" and how we are a bunch of jerks who can't tow the "world line". This tends to be counter-productive and somewhat unpersuasive.
It's always the same reason. The technology is usually either invented here or implemented here first. We in the US are essentially beta testers. After it has been run here for a few years, the problems and areas of improvement become obvious. Thus when the technology is implemented in the rest of the world a couple of years later it takes advantage of better understanding and newer technology to make improvements. Of course by this time the technology is well entrenched in the US and it would be very costly and unfair to expect our economy to pay for every new invention twice.
Of course this works in reverse as well. When a new technology is invented in Asia or Europe first the US usually gets the "world" standard.
There is no bias, subtle or otherwise in this article. You are reading into the article things that are not there. I suggest you examine your own biases.
You are just reading the sentence wrong. It does not say the Shenzhou V is 1960's technology. It says the Shenzhou V "is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s." In English that sentence means the Russian Soyuz was developed in the late 1960's and the Shenzhou is based on that design. This is true. It does not imply that that the Shenzhou V uses 1960's technology, only that it is based on the Russian Soyuz. You are just being overly sensitive. Calm down.
Yep. No knives, no bayonet. Kinda sucks. Close quarters combat drill was all hand to hand or with a rifle butt. Once we got out of SOI I never even saw a bayonet.
Tanto's were a popular choice. K-BAR's were not even being made at that time. They just started making them again a couple of years ago. If you wanted a knife with a Globe and Anchor on the sheath you had to but a black Camillus "combat knife". Even the new "k-bar" isn't the same design. Sad. I lost my dad's Korean war issue k-bar when I was a kid in Boy Scouts. I always thought I would one day earn my own to give my kids. I was a bit upset when the Gunney said go buy your own.
I was a rifleman in the Marine Corps. We were never issued knives or bayonets. If you wanted a knife you bought your own. We trained with bayonets but that was the last I ever saw of them. Bayonets are not sharp, just pointy.
"I will not sign this on the grounds that you do not have the right nor privilege to require this information for the sake of employment. If you care to push this issue further, I will schedule a court date at the County courthouse and we will deal with it there."
You are absolutely wrong about this. Employers have a federally protected right to do a credit check as part of a pre-employment screening process. If they backed down it was because they were incompetent. If you tried that stunt with me I would politely explain the facts and make it clear that this is a non-negotiable requirement for employment.
The service is quick. They have almost everything ever produced on DVD. Dealing with the mailing part is totally painless. Give the free trial a spin. You won't regret it.
The FAQ that the original comment mentions clearly shows how all of the parts are useful and not at all detrimental to the beetle. I would recommend you actually read the FAQ before making ignorant comments.
Warden emphasized that Microsoft made many concessions, including a pledge to disclose client/server programming protocols--a move that went "far outside the case as tried,"
The morning session ended with Brad Smith, Microsoft's incoming general counsel, who said that the company was already trying to comply with the terms of the settlement proposal.
I wondered what was going on over at Microsoft with the recent Kerberos protocol documentation release. It seems to me that this could be a clever and subtle move by Microsoft. Imagine what would happen if for some reason the settlement was rejected. Microsoft can now claim that in an effort to be good citizens they attempted to comply with the proposed settlement and released several protocols. In other words they can now claim that the cat is out of the bag and the settlement must be allowed. This claim is specious at best but could be used to extend this process for years. Hmmm....
Sorry, but I just went to several web sites that I buy from and tried this. It worked on EVERY ONE of them. I called the told them about the bug and asked them to cancel the order. One of the sites I tried is a MAJOR retailer.
J Swan did not invent the incandescent light bulb.
From Websters: "to think up; devise or fabricate in the mind "
The incandescent light bulb was invented by an American, J Starr, in 1845. Starr developed the concept of a carbonized conductor in a sealed glass container as a light production method. Swan was the first to show an implementation of Starr's idea. Unfortunatley it did not work very well at all. Edison showed a vastly superior implementation one year later.
The problem that I see here is that they are both arguing different points. What I got out of this is:
John says: "Open source sucks because it's not making any money."
Bob says: "Open source is successful because it has produced so many highly useful and popular applications."
They really aren't talking about the same thing at all. Both are mostly correct. There are not very many financially successful "open source only" companies. Maybe ten to twenty at most. Compare that to thousands of successful traditional closed source companies. On the other hand there are countless successful(not in money but in user share or useability or function) open source projects and applications. Bob's list is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just a matter of time before a large open source company becomes truly profitable. Open source really is changing the world, but slowly. It is just a matter of time before we see many more successful open source companies. In the mean time this sort of "not the same point" argument tends to needlessly fan the flames.
When I was in the Corps we trained to operate effectively for extended periods on as little 1/2 an MRE per day. That is well under 1000 calories. You really can't do it for more than a week though. You start to get very sluggish, you fall asleep a lot (once I fell asleep on a hump) and you start to make bad decisions. Some of the old-timers had some tricks, like putting instant coffee under your eyelids, that would perk you up for a half hour or so, but the only really effective option was sleep and lots of food. I always had a hard time keeping anything down from the first big meal though.
With all due respect, sir, you may be wrong. I support a large network of windows machines & run a few nix boxes as well. We have this one magic NT server that is freakishly stable. It has NEVER crashed in the two years that it has been here. We have to reboot it every six months because of a weird memory leak in the back-up software but it certainly has never crashed. Very, very rarely you will come across one of these magic boxes. You scratch your head and puzzle on it for a moment and then move on. The rest of the NT servers crash on a regular basis (two or three times a month.) My primary linux box has crashed four times in the last year, mostly because I did something stupid to it. My secondary name server(RH 6.1, BIND 8) has never crashed. So to call this guy names and to insult him without access to the facts may be just a bit of an over reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly not less that the whole of the UK but most in the UK live in and very near to cities. More that half of the US lives outside of cities. Even near our cities the US is FAR less densely populated. For example Los Angeles county has a population density of around 2500 people per square mile. The Greater London area has a population density of around 12,000 people per square mile. That is a substantial difference. Sometimes the definition of the Greater London area is expanded to include an additional 5658 square miles of rural countryside with a population of only 1-2 million additional people. Of course that land with a population density of less than 300 people per square mile is hardly a "city" or metropolitan area and is mostly used to artificially lower the population density of Greater London.
I have never been to London but I know many people from the UK and I have several friends that have traveled there. They all report that the quality of public transport outside of major urban areas is of poor quality. Sometimes just one bus serving an entire village.
In light of this information I don't think your position is very persuasive.
This game is all about virtual beer pong. What is the most popular non-video game on campus? Beer pong. I bet there will be game modes that easily simulate beer pong. Maybe a secret hidden game as well.
All of the great programming is still on. It just moved to specialty channels. The folks at Discovery figured out that they could put all the shows together into themes and then dedicate entire channels to them. When Discovery first started they had one channel. Now they have eleven: Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Health, Travel Channel, Discovery Kids, Discovery Times, The Science Channel, Discovery Home, Military Channel and the Crown jewel Discovery HD. I get them all for about $5 a month. You should check it out before posting second hand mis-information.
I'll believe it when I see the proof from an independent lab outside of S. Korea.
You are missing the point. The whole point is that GSM was developed in Europe well AFTER cell phones were in widespread use in the US with a different technology. That is generally what happens. Cell phones were in widespread use here in the US. A NEWER, better communications standard was developed in Europe using the lessons learned in the US. The US used APMS and then D-AMPS and had a huge investment in the existing technology. Thus the US would then have to tear down it's existing infrastructure and rebuild using the new standard. That is why we have different standards. Of course most under informed Europeans just go directly to Anti-American mode and start complaining about how the US has to be "special" and "different" and how we are a bunch of jerks who can't tow the "world line". This tends to be counter-productive and somewhat unpersuasive.
It's always the same reason. The technology is usually either invented here or implemented here first. We in the US are essentially beta testers. After it has been run here for a few years, the problems and areas of improvement become obvious. Thus when the technology is implemented in the rest of the world a couple of years later it takes advantage of better understanding and newer technology to make improvements. Of course by this time the technology is well entrenched in the US and it would be very costly and unfair to expect our economy to pay for every new invention twice.
Of course this works in reverse as well. When a new technology is invented in Asia or Europe first the US usually gets the "world" standard.
There is no bias, subtle or otherwise in this article. You are reading into the article things that are not there. I suggest you examine your own biases.
You are just reading the sentence wrong. It does not say the Shenzhou V is 1960's technology. It says the Shenzhou V "is based on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft, a model developed in the late 1960s." In English that sentence means the Russian Soyuz was developed in the late 1960's and the Shenzhou is based on that design. This is true. It does not imply that that the Shenzhou V uses 1960's technology, only that it is based on the Russian Soyuz. You are just being overly sensitive. Calm down.
You ever seen one of taco's posts?
;->
How about hemos?
That's some low UID's.
We get karma and mod points because we obsess over slashdot. The low UID's are a byproduct of that, not a cause.
Yep. ;->
Yep. No knives, no bayonet. Kinda sucks. Close quarters combat drill was all hand to hand or with a rifle butt. Once we got out of SOI I never even saw a bayonet.
Tanto's were a popular choice. K-BAR's were not even being made at that time. They just started making them again a couple of years ago. If you wanted a knife with a Globe and Anchor on the sheath you had to but a black Camillus "combat knife". Even the new "k-bar" isn't the same design. Sad. I lost my dad's Korean war issue k-bar when I was a kid in Boy Scouts. I always thought I would one day earn my own to give my kids. I was a bit upset when the Gunney said go buy your own.
We don't issue knives to our soldiers.
I was a rifleman in the Marine Corps. We were never issued knives or bayonets. If you wanted a knife you bought your own. We trained with bayonets but that was the last I ever saw of them. Bayonets are not sharp, just pointy.
Veteran. Please. That is so 1999.
You are absolutely wrong about this. Employers have a federally protected right to do a credit check as part of a pre-employment screening process. If they backed down it was because they were incompetent. If you tried that stunt with me I would politely explain the facts and make it clear that this is a non-negotiable requirement for employment.
Netflix rocks.
The service is quick. They have almost everything ever produced on DVD. Dealing with the mailing part is totally painless. Give the free trial a spin. You won't regret it.
The FAQ that the original comment mentions clearly shows how all of the parts are useful and not at all detrimental to the beetle. I would recommend you actually read the FAQ before making ignorant comments.
The morning session ended with Brad Smith, Microsoft's incoming general counsel, who said that the company was already trying to comply with the terms of the settlement proposal.
I wondered what was going on over at Microsoft with the recent Kerberos protocol documentation release. It seems to me that this could be a clever and subtle move by Microsoft. Imagine what would happen if for some reason the settlement was rejected. Microsoft can now claim that in an effort to be good citizens they attempted to comply with the proposed settlement and released several protocols. In other words they can now claim that the cat is out of the bag and the settlement must be allowed. This claim is specious at best but could be used to extend this process for years. Hmmm....
Ha! Your sad porn-to-IIS matching skills have failed you!
Netcraft report:
The site www.pornking.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Fool! Do not tempt the porn gods lest the naughty, jiggley bits of young women be hidden from your view for all eternity.
Sorry, but I just went to several web sites that I buy from and tried this. It worked on EVERY ONE of them. I called the told them about the bug and asked them to cancel the order. One of the sites I tried is a MAJOR retailer.
J Swan did not invent the incandescent light bulb.
From Websters: "to think up; devise or fabricate in the mind "
The incandescent light bulb was invented by an American, J Starr, in 1845. Starr developed the concept of a carbonized conductor in a sealed glass container as a light production method. Swan was the first to show an implementation of Starr's idea. Unfortunatley it did not work very well at all. Edison showed a vastly superior implementation one year later.
The problem that I see here is that they are both arguing different points. What I got out of this is:
John says: "Open source sucks because it's not making any money."
Bob says: "Open source is successful because it has produced so many highly useful and popular applications."
They really aren't talking about the same thing at all. Both are mostly correct. There are not very many financially successful "open source only" companies. Maybe ten to twenty at most. Compare that to thousands of successful traditional closed source companies. On the other hand there are countless successful(not in money but in user share or useability or function) open source projects and applications. Bob's list is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just a matter of time before a large open source company becomes truly profitable. Open source really is changing the world, but slowly. It is just a matter of time before we see many more successful open source companies. In the mean time this sort of "not the same point" argument tends to needlessly fan the flames.
When I was in the Corps we trained to operate effectively for extended periods on as little 1/2 an MRE per day. That is well under 1000 calories. You really can't do it for more than a week though. You start to get very sluggish, you fall asleep a lot (once I fell asleep on a hump) and you start to make bad decisions. Some of the old-timers had some tricks, like putting instant coffee under your eyelids, that would perk you up for a half hour or so, but the only really effective option was sleep and lots of food. I always had a hard time keeping anything down from the first big meal though.
With all due respect, sir, you may be wrong. I support a large network of windows machines & run a few nix boxes as well. We have this one magic NT server that is freakishly stable. It has NEVER crashed in the two years that it has been here. We have to reboot it every six months because of a weird memory leak in the back-up software but it certainly has never crashed. Very, very rarely you will come across one of these magic boxes. You scratch your head and puzzle on it for a moment and then move on. The rest of the NT servers crash on a regular basis (two or three times a month.) My primary linux box has crashed four times in the last year, mostly because I did something stupid to it. My secondary name server(RH 6.1, BIND 8) has never crashed. So to call this guy names and to insult him without access to the facts may be just a bit of an over reaction.
Dude - He's talking about the theme from "Shaft" the 1970's Shaft. That song was around when the guys from Pearl Jam were still in diapers.
Pearl Jam lifted it FROM Issac Hayes.
I started on the hackers diet right after it was posted here. I have found it to be a wonderful tool for losing and MAINTAINING my weight.
276 lbs when I started.
221 lbs this morning and continuing to lose.
I look much thinner and my girlfriend says that I haven't looked this good since I got out of the Marine Corps.
I highly recommend this diet to all geeks.