This is not for live broadcasts, basically it's for downloading and viewing later. BT works wonderfully for this. I select something off one of the sites and it's ready to watch in the evening.
I suppose if you watch more than an hour of TV a night then it's a problem. But for me I have limited number of shows I'll watch. Netflix fills in the movie needs, but I'm giving serious consideration to stopping that as well.
I'm amazed the DNS has survived with the root servers controlled by one entity. Others have tried but failed. I guess it's because the DNS is not vital to the net.
Two people discussing is not politics, well not to my mind anyway. When one speaks on anothers behalf, that is politics.
You have a problem because you cannot or will not use the tools available. So we have to involve the goverment? I ask again, how will getting the goverment involved cure spam?
The comments on the UN and censorship show just how far apart we are on the ideas of goverment. If I elect you to represent me, why should you then hide information from me? There is nothing a goverment does that should not be open. I'm not saying that is how a goverment currenlty opperates but rather there is no logical reason for secrecy in goverment.
Denied medical help? That happens currently, long waitng lists or treatments not covered. The idea of free healthcare is what I want, the idea that a goverment supplies this best is ludicrous.
Most of the internet was started with state sponsorship, The question becomes is that the best way. Merely holding up that it worked is not an answer to the question.
Politics has only really been around for about 15,000 years, not a long time in the evolution of man and certainly not forever. In fact we survived for a very long time with little or no politics. Only when our food supply was brought under lock and key did politics become neccessary.
The internet is doing just fine without the goverment why fuck with something that works? In fact it could be held up as a model for what happens when goverment leaves well alone. Every time control is applied to the net it changes and reacts in ways unexpected or intended. I wonder what beneifts you think a goverment could bring?
I have no problem with spam. I have a yahoo account on the odd occasion I get spam, I let yahoo know and they can then filter out that spam for others. Now what is the goverment proposal to stop spam?
The UN is politico organistation with aims and goals, they engage in PR. Do you think they publish every piece of information they recieve?
Where I live the emrgency services are paid for with my taxes. I would much prefer going back to a system that had no goverment involvement. Or are you going to tell me these services work and are worth money they cost?
The internet was up and running in the late 60s, how long did it take for the goverment to de-regulate it? Are you going to hold this up as a goverment success? I think you could speculate that an internet was bound to happen as soon as computers were cheap, look at the 80s BBS scene, look at WiFi now. The question is did the goverment help or hinder the development?
I do feel there is place for a goverment, but one that is smaller and more open than the one we have now. I would love to see anarchy, the lack of goverment, embraced. I just fear that anarchy like democracy or communisim would be a fleeting step before oppresion.
I rather think the gods are smiling on me. Earlier today I heard I am also to be the proud owner of an AS/400 for $0.
QEMU and Pear both have useable PowerPC emulators. Hercules is still going strong.
I think I'll mosey on over and pick up the chip specs. I'll see if I cannot con, I mean encourgae, a few AIX geeks to get that runnning under Qemu or Pear. Then a hop skip and a jump and I'll get the one emulator I want.
Voting for Nader was voting for a difference i.e. I'm sick of the two party system with one choice. This time I'm hoping it's a case of voting for or against Bush.
You list a group of actions by the current incumbents, if you look back at some of Clinton's actions you'll see a similar dis-regard for the environment. The Pro Life stuff is different between Clinton & Bush, but is that the only one?
Now think about how different other parties are to the two main ones. Libertarion, Socialist, Green. These parties have radically different ideas as to how a nation should be run. There are other more radical neigh revolutionary ideas as well.
Why do the dem or rep win? Because they appeal to the majority of the voters that are going to vote! Both parties wish to win so they have to appeal to this demographic.
Face it the two main parties are the two sides of the same coin, that's why you have swing voters. It's the same in any two party system. The two party system is there to ensure stability. If one party strays to far from the peoples wishes the other party gets elected.
When the population changes so will the parties. Look back at the dems change when de-segregation came in. A number of southern dems went republican over it.
The question is are we in a time of population change? Is the voter demo changing or the mindset of the voting population altering. If it is then the parties can change. If they change with out a voter change they don't get elected.
If you want further proof, ask yourself how many laws are rmoved by new administrations? How many times do they come in and try and change things. Very rarely, they might add new laws or remove an ancient law, but very rarely does laws of the previous adminsitration get removed.
Lastly, how ironic is it that the last president to make large social reforms of a liberal bent was Nixon! I held hope for the Clinton public healthcare initative but was not suprised when it failed, far to civilised a thing for an empire to have.
The idea that racing can be made a level playing field with regards to money is dreaming. Those with the most money usually win.
Those with the most money be it cost limited or not usually have the best equipment. As F1 is demonstrating if you limit the rules, the teams will just spend the money elsewhere.
The team with most money can buy the best personnel, be it designers, drivers or pastry chefs.
The teams with the most money can do more testing. If you limit testing they'll just spend more more on simulation.
Of course there are exceptions. I liked it very much that BAR failed in F1 until they got a decent team principal who cared about the engineering rather than the advertising:-)
The thing you want to do during a race is make adjustments, even better if the car makes them automatically. Fuel loads change, track conditions change, tyres change. The more work the system does the more you can concentrate on what's left.
Take a look at any race car there are any number of adjustments the driver makes. Be it brake bias, rollbar stiffness, boost, rev limiter, mixture, shocks. the fastest drivers are making these changes during a corner, the ideal setting for entry is most certainly the not the one you want on exit.
Being such a knowledgeable race fan you must have heard of active suspenson with regards to F1. This system is almost the same. In fact one of the most dominant F1 cars of all time was fitted with active suspension.
In F1 the active was used solely to maintain the aero attack angle. Screw driver comfort keep the wings flying. But you could change that so your active suspension favours providing grip or favours drifts or anything you damn well please.
In fact active suspension was banned as a driver aid, it sure as hell wasn't banned because it made the cars slower! It was banned because it worked and worked damned well.
The best race teams hardly ever make radical alterations to car at the track. The reason is that they have raced at the track many times before and have historical data, they set the car up at the factory and then make minor adjustments at the track.
Changes to suspenson can indeed make braking more effective, so it may be feasable that a change via a system like this could help brakes make it to the end.
If your stupid enough to drive over oil/fuel then I hardly think you can blame the system for not saving you.
It would appear the only thing I agree with in your post is the need for a crew chief
Slashdot Mirror
This is not for live broadcasts, basically it's for downloading and viewing later. BT works wonderfully for this. I select something off one of the sites and it's ready to watch in the evening.
I suppose if you watch more than an hour of TV a night then it's a problem. But for me I have limited number of shows I'll watch. Netflix fills in the movie needs, but I'm giving serious consideration to stopping that as well.
I guess the only reason you don't support Bush 100% is that you think he wussed out for nuking the place?
That's right he should stick to sleeping with those other nuclear scientists.
Hear, hear...
I'm amazed the DNS has survived with the root servers controlled by one entity. Others have tried but failed. I guess it's because the DNS is not vital to the net.
Two people discussing is not politics, well not to my mind anyway. When one speaks on anothers behalf, that is politics.
You have a problem because you cannot or will not use the tools available. So we have to involve the goverment? I ask again, how will getting the goverment involved cure spam?
The comments on the UN and censorship show just how far apart we are on the ideas of goverment. If I elect you to represent me, why should you then hide information from me? There is nothing a goverment does that should not be open. I'm not saying that is how a goverment currenlty opperates but rather there is no logical reason for secrecy in goverment.
Denied medical help? That happens currently, long waitng lists or treatments not covered. The idea of free healthcare is what I want, the idea that a goverment supplies this best is ludicrous.
Most of the internet was started with state sponsorship, The question becomes is that the best way. Merely holding up that it worked is not an answer to the question.
Politics has only really been around for about 15,000 years, not a long time in the evolution of man and certainly not forever. In fact we survived for a very long time with little or no politics. Only when our food supply was brought under lock and key did politics become neccessary.
The internet is doing just fine without the goverment why fuck with something that works? In fact it could be held up as a model for what happens when goverment leaves well alone. Every time control is applied to the net it changes and reacts in ways unexpected or intended. I wonder what beneifts you think a goverment could bring?
I have no problem with spam. I have a yahoo account on the odd occasion I get spam, I let yahoo know and they can then filter out that spam for others. Now what is the goverment proposal to stop spam?
The UN is politico organistation with aims and goals, they engage in PR. Do you think they publish every piece of information they recieve?
Where I live the emrgency services are paid for with my taxes. I would much prefer going back to a system that had no goverment involvement. Or are you going to tell me these services work and are worth money they cost?
The internet was up and running in the late 60s, how long did it take for the goverment to de-regulate it? Are you going to hold this up as a goverment success? I think you could speculate that an internet was bound to happen as soon as computers were cheap, look at the 80s BBS scene, look at WiFi now. The question is did the goverment help or hinder the development?
I do feel there is place for a goverment, but one that is smaller and more open than the one we have now. I would love to see anarchy, the lack of goverment, embraced. I just fear that anarchy like democracy or communisim would be a fleeting step before oppresion.
...and I'm here to help!
The internet is driven by it's users, the UN, the protoype world goverment, is driven by power.
The internet has intelligence at it's ends, the UN intellegence is centralised.
The internet routes around censorship, the UN is censorship.
He's from the goverment and all he does is cost money and fuck things up.
This /. it's doubtful there's any truth behind the story.
I rather think the gods are smiling on me. Earlier today I heard I am also to be the proud owner of an AS/400 for $0.
QEMU and Pear both have useable PowerPC emulators. Hercules is still going strong.
I think I'll mosey on over and pick up the chip specs. I'll see if I cannot con, I mean encourgae, a few AIX geeks to get that runnning under Qemu or Pear. Then a hop skip and a jump and I'll get the one emulator I want.
Couldn't we just give the crew the glasses in HHGTTG. First sign of danger they turn black. Just what pilots need.
Coupled with transmission loses,
loses with charging
Well that's OK, I'll make sure only trained pilots crash into your house.
It took 11 years to say yes? To flying what, where and when. I think there must have been more to it than that.
Big goverment is by definition slow and cumbersome. To get anything done in a timely manner requires people to avoid the goverment laws.
Jesus,
what the hell was the FAA thinking.
If this isn't an advertisment for reducing the size of goverment I don't know what is.
Civil dis-obedience is rapidly becoming mandatory behaviour.
"I love evolution"
What's it look like from the side lines?
Voting for Nader was voting for a difference i.e. I'm sick of the two party system with one choice. This time I'm hoping it's a case of voting for or against Bush.
You list a group of actions by the current incumbents, if you look back at some of Clinton's actions you'll see a similar dis-regard for the environment. The Pro Life stuff is different between Clinton & Bush, but is that the only one?
Now think about how different other parties are to the two main ones. Libertarion, Socialist, Green. These parties have radically different ideas as to how a nation should be run. There are other more radical neigh revolutionary ideas as well.
Why do the dem or rep win? Because they appeal to the majority of the voters that are going to vote! Both parties wish to win so they have to appeal to this demographic.
Face it the two main parties are the two sides of the same coin, that's why you have swing voters. It's the same in any two party system. The two party system is there to ensure stability. If one party strays to far from the peoples wishes the other party gets elected.
When the population changes so will the parties. Look back at the dems change when de-segregation came in. A number of southern dems went republican over it.
The question is are we in a time of population change? Is the voter demo changing or the mindset of the voting population altering. If it is then the parties can change. If they change with out a voter change they don't get elected.
If you want further proof, ask yourself how many laws are rmoved by new administrations? How many times do they come in and try and change things. Very rarely, they might add new laws or remove an ancient law, but very rarely does laws of the previous adminsitration get removed.
Lastly, how ironic is it that the last president to make large social reforms of a liberal bent was Nixon! I held hope for the Clinton public healthcare initative but was not suprised when it failed, far to civilised a thing for an empire to have.
Really,
so what would you call the sun of the emperor who became emperor?
Take a good long look at the bloodlines of your presidents and then come back and condescendingly talk about kings and princes.
If you suggest this at my work place I can gurantee you would not live to see the event.
Welcome to the new red neck /.
Welcome to the new red neck /.
Gimme those tube amps. I really can't get excited over cold digital, give the warm glow of a tube and I'm happy.
Now how do I mount valve in the PCI form factor?
Hands up who has heard,seen or used BI tools. Obviously the stupid editor posting IT stories doesn't know about common IT tools.
/. is paid to promote a company?
I doubt very much this will turn into something huge. It's just not different enough from the competition.
BI coupled with neural nets is probably the next big thing in mining and presenting data.
I wonder how much
The very day you want to be erased and a doppleganger to appear in your place of work.
The idea that racing can be made a level playing field with regards to money is dreaming. Those with the most money usually win.
:-)
Those with the most money be it cost limited or not usually have the best equipment. As F1 is demonstrating if you limit the rules, the teams will just spend the money elsewhere.
The team with most money can buy the best personnel, be it designers, drivers or pastry chefs.
The teams with the most money can do more testing. If you limit testing they'll just spend more more on simulation.
Of course there are exceptions. I liked it very much that BAR failed in F1 until they got a decent team principal who cared about the engineering rather than the advertising
The thing you want to do during a race is make adjustments, even better if the car makes them automatically. Fuel loads change, track conditions change, tyres change. The more work the system does the more you can concentrate on what's left.
Take a look at any race car there are any number of adjustments the driver makes. Be it brake bias, rollbar stiffness, boost, rev limiter, mixture, shocks. the fastest drivers are making these changes during a corner, the ideal setting for entry is most certainly the not the one you want on exit.
Being such a knowledgeable race fan you must have heard of active suspenson with regards to F1. This system is almost the same. In fact one of the most dominant F1 cars of all time was fitted with active suspension.
In F1 the active was used solely to maintain the aero attack angle. Screw driver comfort keep the wings flying. But you could change that so your active suspension favours providing grip or favours drifts or anything you damn well please.
In fact active suspension was banned as a driver aid, it sure as hell wasn't banned because it made the cars slower! It was banned because it worked and worked damned well.
The best race teams hardly ever make radical alterations to car at the track. The reason is that they have raced at the track many times before and have historical data, they set the car up at the factory and then make minor adjustments at the track.
Changes to suspenson can indeed make braking more effective, so it may be feasable that a change via a system like this could help brakes make it to the end.
If your stupid enough to drive over oil/fuel then I hardly think you can blame the system for not saving you.
It would appear the only thing I agree with in your post is the need for a crew chief