Night and day? Maybe when you're parked, but I own a house for that.
Perhaps if I lived in the high desert and drove a Bentley than things would be quiet enough for the differences to matter, but I live in Baltimore and I like to drive with the windows down. What the hell else is the point if the pretty girl in the next car doesn't look over and nod approvingly at your choice of music?
And I see CD's now, often the ones that were dropped on the floor and scratched.
Sure, my tape player eats the odd tape. I cry, and then I go home, pull the CD off the shelf, and make myself a new disposable tape for the car. A blank TDK is a hell of a lot cheaper than a new CD, and I can drop it a bunch more times before I need to replace it.
It's a lot less than 50%, I might add, at least if I scrape off the gum before insertion.
If you ask me (didn't somebody ask me?), this is exactly why God gave us the cassette tape -- CD's are delicate things that should never be used in a moving automobile.
And after all, it's not like you really need extreme hi-fi sound in a car, what with little bitty speakers, road noise, wind, etc., never mind that guy at the stoplight with Suburban White Boy Posse cranked up so high his fillings are vibrating loose (unless maybe you're wearing headphones ).
Has anybody heard what made John Does 1 & 2 different (I assume that Dendrite was able to show damage in their cases), and what success they've had in ID'ing them?
Well, that's if your sniper is in Day of the Jackal. If he's in Bosnia, for instance, he's picking off ordinary grunts and he's firing more than once. Don't you remember the snipers who used to fire into the streets of Sarajevo, just making life hell for regular people?
Sure, I'm familiar with deadpan. Buster Keaton is an old favourite of mine.
I was just replying to the suggestion that "Sun started making SO for suns and later on it got free and ported to other platforms." by pointing out that Sun didn't start making SO at all -- they bought a company that had been actively selling the product for some time.
What they did do, of course, was release it as freeware, and then open much of the source.
Slashdot's reputation!? Slashdot's rep is that of a bunch of college students commenting outside their experience and expertise, and it's not very far wrong. It's fun and a good read and I've learned some things around here, but it's a lot like hanging out in the Quad at Enormous State University and eavesdropping on 15 different conversations. If we had a keg we'd call it a party.
And a little before that it was the other way around. Take a look at flappers, or the earliest Miss America winners -- in a dimly-lit bar they could have passed for boys (what exactly that says about American men in the singles scene I don't want to know).
Maybe each generation alternates, so that girlfriends don't look too much like Mom.
Of course, most of us just remember that all cats are grey in the dark.
Yup, you're right -- controlled re-entry from orbit is clearly impossible. Thank God we don't send people up there!
Sarcasm aside, remember that an SR-71 is not only considerably larger, but also works with air very differently. Airflow is not a necessary evil to an airplane, but rather the stuff of life itself -- wings and jet engine intakes engines are expressly designed to catch air. We're talking here about something much less like a bird and much more like a spear.
Remember too that the SR-71, impressive as she is, was not optimised for speed per se. She needs to go long distances and be able to take off on her own as well. The X-15, for instance, technology of nearly the same generation but free of those constraints, achieved double SR-71 speeds. Obviously every orbital launch hits 25,000 mph without melting the structure. And of course, mentioning the X-15 reminds me that the SR-71 made her first flights around 1965 -- a lot has happened in the last 35 years.
Lastly, the SR-71 is designed to be reusable. The flying crowbar only has to make the flight once.
I'm not saying that this is something that could be built today, merely that it could be built in a fairly short time. There's nothing fundamentally new here -- ICBM's have dropped semi-ballistic warheads for quite some time, cruise missles have demonstrated excellent autonomous control, and anti-tank canon rounds are already kinetic-energy spears. It wouldn't be trivial, but it wouldn't be revolutionary either.
I'm afraid the shotgun analogy misses (sorry, couldn't resist ). The individual "crowbars" are aimed, not merely scattered toward the target. One crowbar, one tank.
Dresden and Hamburg represented tactics of mass destruction, not weapons. Mrs. O'Leary's cow was not a weapon of mass destruction either, and yet it burned out Chicago.
Part of the issue is that an atomic bomb, for instance, cannot really be used any other way. Any of the bombs dropped on Dresden could have been dropped on a single, clearly-defined target (a particular building, say), but they were instead dropped en masse. The enormous destruction was a result of how they were used, not of their specific nature.
In the same way, black-powder arms and muzzle-loading cannon killed 40,000 at Gettysburg, but such are not weapons of mass destruction.
How do you figure the flying crowbars or brilliant pebbles or whatever are "weapons of mass destruction"? The whole point is that they hit small targets, like a single tank, rather than large targets, like a city.
Many small weapons do not constitute one large weapon, unless you want to claim that weapons of mass destruction were employed in (for instance) the American Civil War.
So, let me see if I understand this game -- you name a city, and then a couple of corporations who may have committed atrocities but have no special connection to that city?
OK, I'll start this time: "Brazilia asks itself this all the time. Maybe you didn't notice, being a raving lunatic and all, but Brazilia is resposible for more death and destruction than the most evil communist countries ever was.", and then you say, "Huh?", and I say, "Are Airbus and General Motors absolved of guilt merely because they're flagships of the great wonder of capitalism?"
Yeah, whatever, I guess. Not much of a game, is it? Does anybody have a deck of cards?
Actually, I think your memory may be backwards. As I recall, the Act allowed local channels to bow out of retransmission by cable companies, which is to say it permitted the local channel to charge the cable company for carrying their programming. Since most people want local news and weather, most cable companies went ahead and negotiated agreements with the local broadcasters.
You may well be right about the legal aspect, although that makes the definition of "medium" very powerful. Many US cities that have only one daily paper, for instance, so if "daily paper" were defined as a single medium (as distinct from "local periodical", for instance), then suddenly the East Hogjowl Daily Gab becomes a dreaded monopoly.
Reading the article, I'm a little unclear on exactly who was selling the ad time. Under normal circumstances (and I'm not an ad man, so somebody jump in here), I would expect to go to the cable network (ESPN, for instance, or MTV), rather than the cable provider (TW or TCI) to buy ad time. It may be that a certain portion of the ad time on each channel can be allocated to the local cable company to sell, which makes sense for regional ads, and that it was that ad time which TW refused to sell.
For sure, however, I see local (very local, like those terrible ads for lawyers) here in the Baltimore market on both the broadcast and cable signal (ie, turn on two TV's, one with and one without cable, and set them to a local channel), which would clearly show that ad time can be bought locally, without going through the cable company. Hell, we had one channel around here which refused to allow its signal to be carried on the cable system unless they received greater compensation -- certainly their ads are uncontaminated.
Yes, of course they own magazines (Time, Life, Fortune...). Those are all national rags, however, and as discussed, regional ISP's don't want national ads anyway. The question is whether or not TW can stop you from advertising in East Hogjowl, Nebraska, and my contention is that they cannot.
Oh, surely not a raving lunatic. Eccentric, perhaps, maybe even dotty, but raving is so distasteful...
My main point in mentioning policemen is that ultimately every law or regulation is likely someday somewhere to be enforced by some cop going through a door, and I think it would be useful if people remembered that. Whether your sympathies lie with the lawbreaker and his damaged door, or the policeman who may get shot, it makes sense to try to stick to laws that are worth mayhem.
That said, and speaking as a Baltimorean (always up to see the Yankees struck down by a vengeful God, and comepletely careless of damage to the rest of the city), I have to ask: what the hell are you talking about?
Hmmm...when I watch cable, I'm watching my local TV stations much of the time. Are you telling me that TW is censoring the ads run by (in my case) WMAR or WJZ?
For sure they're not controlling billboards, radio (well, they probably have some influence there), newspapers, magazines, and guys walking up and down wearing sandwich boards. Contrary to what your cable company may tell you, they are far from the only game in town when it comes to advertising, and most especially when it comes to local and regional advertising, which is, after all, the topic here.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if I lived in the high desert and drove a Bentley than things would be quiet enough for the differences to matter, but I live in Baltimore and I like to drive with the windows down. What the hell else is the point if the pretty girl in the next car doesn't look over and nod approvingly at your choice of music?
Sure, my tape player eats the odd tape. I cry, and then I go home, pull the CD off the shelf, and make myself a new disposable tape for the car. A blank TDK is a hell of a lot cheaper than a new CD, and I can drop it a bunch more times before I need to replace it.
It's a lot less than 50%, I might add, at least if I scrape off the gum before insertion.
And after all, it's not like you really need extreme hi-fi sound in a car, what with little bitty speakers, road noise, wind, etc., never mind that guy at the stoplight with Suburban White Boy Posse cranked up so high his fillings are vibrating loose (unless maybe you're wearing headphones ).
The difficult thing, of course, is controlled and sustained nuclear fusion
Has anybody heard what made John Does 1 & 2 different (I assume that Dendrite was able to show damage in their cases), and what success they've had in ID'ing them?
Well, that's if your sniper is in Day of the Jackal. If he's in Bosnia, for instance, he's picking off ordinary grunts and he's firing more than once. Don't you remember the snipers who used to fire into the streets of Sarajevo, just making life hell for regular people?
It's all about enclosing a volume -- it's not like a block of steel floats either, but nobody blinks at a steel ship.
I was figuring it was a slasher movie about a crazed graphic artist. The sequel, of course, would be PhotoChop
I was just replying to the suggestion that "Sun started making SO for suns and later on it got free and ported to other platforms." by pointing out that Sun didn't start making SO at all -- they bought a company that had been actively selling the product for some time.
What they did do, of course, was release it as freeware, and then open much of the source.
Didn't Sun buy Star as a going for-profit concern?
Slashdot's reputation!? Slashdot's rep is that of a bunch of college students commenting outside their experience and expertise, and it's not very far wrong. It's fun and a good read and I've learned some things around here, but it's a lot like hanging out in the Quad at Enormous State University and eavesdropping on 15 different conversations. If we had a keg we'd call it a party.
It's been replaced with the Red Green version -- "If it ain't broke, you're not trying!"
Maybe each generation alternates, so that girlfriends don't look too much like Mom.
Of course, most of us just remember that all cats are grey in the dark.
Sarcasm aside, remember that an SR-71 is not only considerably larger, but also works with air very differently. Airflow is not a necessary evil to an airplane, but rather the stuff of life itself -- wings and jet engine intakes engines are expressly designed to catch air. We're talking here about something much less like a bird and much more like a spear.
Remember too that the SR-71, impressive as she is, was not optimised for speed per se. She needs to go long distances and be able to take off on her own as well. The X-15, for instance, technology of nearly the same generation but free of those constraints, achieved double SR-71 speeds. Obviously every orbital launch hits 25,000 mph without melting the structure. And of course, mentioning the X-15 reminds me that the SR-71 made her first flights around 1965 -- a lot has happened in the last 35 years.
Lastly, the SR-71 is designed to be reusable. The flying crowbar only has to make the flight once.
I'm not saying that this is something that could be built today, merely that it could be built in a fairly short time. There's nothing fundamentally new here -- ICBM's have dropped semi-ballistic warheads for quite some time, cruise missles have demonstrated excellent autonomous control, and anti-tank canon rounds are already kinetic-energy spears. It wouldn't be trivial, but it wouldn't be revolutionary either.
Eek, didn't know that! I'm not sure if I would consider that an early example of biological warfare or the first use of cluster munitions...
Dresden and Hamburg represented tactics of mass destruction, not weapons. Mrs. O'Leary's cow was not a weapon of mass destruction either, and yet it burned out Chicago.
Part of the issue is that an atomic bomb, for instance, cannot really be used any other way. Any of the bombs dropped on Dresden could have been dropped on a single, clearly-defined target (a particular building, say), but they were instead dropped en masse. The enormous destruction was a result of how they were used, not of their specific nature.
In the same way, black-powder arms and muzzle-loading cannon killed 40,000 at Gettysburg, but such are not weapons of mass destruction.
Far from the first example. Flinging dead bodies over the walls of beseiged towns was common practice in the Middle Ages.
Many small weapons do not constitute one large weapon, unless you want to claim that weapons of mass destruction were employed in (for instance) the American Civil War.
OK, I'll start this time: "Brazilia asks itself this all the time. Maybe you didn't notice, being a raving lunatic and all, but Brazilia is resposible for more death and destruction than the most evil communist countries ever was.", and then you say, "Huh?", and I say, "Are Airbus and General Motors absolved of guilt merely because they're flagships of the great wonder of capitalism?"
Yeah, whatever, I guess. Not much of a game, is it? Does anybody have a deck of cards?
Actually, I think your memory may be backwards. As I recall, the Act allowed local channels to bow out of retransmission by cable companies, which is to say it permitted the local channel to charge the cable company for carrying their programming. Since most people want local news and weather, most cable companies went ahead and negotiated agreements with the local broadcasters.
Reading the article, I'm a little unclear on exactly who was selling the ad time. Under normal circumstances (and I'm not an ad man, so somebody jump in here), I would expect to go to the cable network (ESPN, for instance, or MTV), rather than the cable provider (TW or TCI) to buy ad time. It may be that a certain portion of the ad time on each channel can be allocated to the local cable company to sell, which makes sense for regional ads, and that it was that ad time which TW refused to sell.
For sure, however, I see local (very local, like those terrible ads for lawyers) here in the Baltimore market on both the broadcast and cable signal (ie, turn on two TV's, one with and one without cable, and set them to a local channel), which would clearly show that ad time can be bought locally, without going through the cable company. Hell, we had one channel around here which refused to allow its signal to be carried on the cable system unless they received greater compensation -- certainly their ads are uncontaminated.
We may be the Great Satan, but we're not the only Satan.
Yes, of course they own magazines (Time, Life, Fortune...). Those are all national rags, however, and as discussed, regional ISP's don't want national ads anyway. The question is whether or not TW can stop you from advertising in East Hogjowl, Nebraska, and my contention is that they cannot.
My main point in mentioning policemen is that ultimately every law or regulation is likely someday somewhere to be enforced by some cop going through a door, and I think it would be useful if people remembered that. Whether your sympathies lie with the lawbreaker and his damaged door, or the policeman who may get shot, it makes sense to try to stick to laws that are worth mayhem.
That said, and speaking as a Baltimorean (always up to see the Yankees struck down by a vengeful God, and comepletely careless of damage to the rest of the city), I have to ask: what the hell are you talking about?
For sure they're not controlling billboards, radio (well, they probably have some influence there), newspapers, magazines, and guys walking up and down wearing sandwich boards. Contrary to what your cable company may tell you, they are far from the only game in town when it comes to advertising, and most especially when it comes to local and regional advertising, which is, after all, the topic here.