Then I suggest that you go read some of the other links and see just how many drugs are used without us knowing how they work.
Have fun avoiding all of them.
Yes, you should know about what medicines you are taking. You should make an informed decision on whether or not that medicine is the best thing for your circumstances. But the blanket statement you made was, well, silly.
I would suggest that you do have narcolepsy or chronic fatigue syndrome, just a very mild case of it.
Read some of my other posts on this thread - I have narcolepsy and am on provigil. I can stay awake through some bouts of sleepiness, but not all. And I have what is considered "moderate" narcolepsy.
Talk to your doctor, get a referral to a sleep clinic. Trust me, it's worth it.
Provigil keeps you awake. Period. They've done tests and there are NO negative side effects that anyone's found out to at least 72 hours.
I take it as prescribed, for narcolepsy. I can't personally attest to the above, since 200 mg pills don't even keep me awake for 12 hours, much less 72.
Ever heard of narcolepsy? It's a medical disorder where you fall asleep all the time during the day, regardless of how much sleep you've already gotten. Varies from mild (merely drowsy) to severe (sudden, unavoidable episodes of sleep with little or no warning).
I have it. I'm on Provigil too. I got on it as soon as it was FDA approved. Why? Because the most common prescription for narcolepsy prior to Provigil was Ridalin. Yeah, the same thing they give to treat ADD. It's also a narcotic and addictive.
Provigil doesn't work perfectly for me - I take a 200 mg pill in the morning and usually wind up sleepy in the afternoon - but it works a helluva lot better than Ridalin, isn't addictive (as best the medical industry can tell), and it lets me actually do work rather than falling asleep constantly. Lets me do things like drive safely too. And I only have "moderate" narcolepsy - I know when I'm getting tired, but I'll go to sleep for 15-30 minutes whenever possible. And without treatment it's impossible for me not to.
The fact of the matter is, nobody knows exactly why we sleep, what we need it for, or why some people have sleeping problems (narcolepsy and insomnia). Expecting to know why a drug works when you don't know why the symptoms exist is hopeless. At best you can hope that finding a drug that treats the symptoms will let you figure them both out.
It's a lot easier to bow out of a market when it's a small portion of your total revenue or profit.
The IBM Storage Systems division is/was a part of the Hardware divsion. That division also includes PC, notebook, mainframe, and various other hardware sales. It, as a whole, accounted for ~39% of the total revenue and ~29% of the total profit of IBM for last year (as per their latest 10K).
Now those aren't numbers to sneeze at, but consider that the HD division is a segment of the entire Hardware division. And while the numbers aren't split out, if you read the 10K you'll see they blame a lot of the decline in revenue for the Hardware group on pressures in the PC and HDD market.
Given all of that, IBM can look at the long term market and spin off a portion of itself to an independant company which it retains a large share of. Realize some immediate cash gains, and you reduce the risk you are exposing the company to. If that 3rd party company folds, then you have a tax write off on an investment, and it doesn't look nearly as bad on the balance sheet.
But the important thing here is that IBM has this option. The storage device market is not their lifeblood. If you released a holographic storage system tomorrow that blew the entire HDD market out of the water, IBM would be hurt, but not fatally impaired.
The same is not true for most of the companies you mentioned. They're looking at potential extinction (particularly the middle men in the entertainment business - e.g. the studios and record labels). So they're fighting for their lives. They can't just "leave the market" or "restructure their business". There is no new market and no new structure for them to go to and retain anything even vaguely like what they have now.
I deeply disagree with their attempts to have government prop their industries up, but I'm also realistic. Cornered animals don't fight nice.
Duh. I wouldn't be surprised if the CS130x series has turned into a flunk-out course as are most of the other freshman courses. When I graduated several years back (under the previous CS curriculum), the CS130x series was one of the most "popular" courses to take. Mainly because most of the other colleges had made it a requirement for other coursework.
Re:hmm. not sure about this...
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Ok, no more watching The Matrix for you.
Technically, every life form destroys the things that keep it alive. Ecosystems are self-balancing that way - too many herbivores without predators and the herbivores will starve themselves out. Too many predators and the same thing. And they can, indeed, utterly destroy the environment in the process. Look at what goats do to areas sometime.
Of course, Mr. Darling isn't filtering what he observes to support a non-deity influenced view, right?
Uh huh.
It goes on on both sides. I'll happily admit that I routinely dismiss highly religious people because I feel that it blinds them to what I consider fundamental truths. But I'm bet they feel the same way about atheists too.
Yes, believing in a "deity-influenced" universe means that you have put some blinders on. You will look for proofs that support your position (which is basically looking for very low percentage odds on certain things, or non-sensical behavior in creatures or systems).
By the same token, being a staunch atheist means you will look for any reason to refute the existance of a deity.
Me? I rather think the latter is more sensible, but I'm an atheist and thus biased.
Well, this is true, but I for one would prefer not to be in NYC if Indian Point melts down (for example).
Melts down how?
Do you even understand how US nuclear plants are built? Or how that design varies from Russian and French designed plants?
In case of a catastrophic failure, US plants are self-terminating. In traditional French (and thus, Russian) plant design, if you disable all the safeties and let things go then yes, the nuclear reaction can runaway and you'll have issues. In US design, you disable all the safeties then the rods will slam into the core and shutdown the plant. Forever. (Or at least until you replace the core and the rods). It's simply not possible to have a runaway reaction.
And, of course, you could build new plants using a pebble reactor design which is also inherently safe, but due to different reasons (the reaction mass isn't high enough to go critical in the first place).
But you, like the rest of the general public, doesn't know any of this. Instead you buy into the hype about meltdowns and radioactivity and want "safe" forms of energy. You know. Fossil fuels. That stuff that puts out tons (literally) of pollution yearly, plus radioactivity as well (funny how that never gets mentioned -- you don't think that there are radioactive isotopes in coal and oil?)
Yes, there's solar, wind, and tidal, but they all cost considerably more and have their own environmental effects (most of which haven't been adequately measured due to a lack of data).
Ok, I never played M.U.L.E., but I've never understood why people whined about PC joysticks... yes, they generally sucked. The analog joystick port stinks. But if you want clearly defined directions, the keypad has 8 very clearly defined ones and is pretty darn intuitive to use.
That said, most of the good joysticks nowadays are USB, not analog gameport. They're digital, but generally have enough resolution so that they function as well as a traditional analog joystick (or steering wheel, or throttle, or whatever). Look at Gravis, ThrustMaster, Saitek, and even Microsoft for some good joysticks. No, they're not as simple as the Atari joystick, but I always found the classic Atari 2400 joysticks to be rather dodgy myself (easily broken, not exactly accurate, etc.)
It's more than just fuel costs... there's also issues with warfare. There were numerous stories regarding Somalia and Ethiopia a few years back about how Western countries were sending food to be distributed to the starving populace. And it was rotting on the docks.
Why? Because various warlords wouldn't allow the supply caravans through their territory, or wanted "protection money", etc. to ensure safe passage. Which wasn't budgeted for. So people on the other side starved.
Yeah, I guess with enough fuel you could just airdrop the stuff, which leads back to your argument (which is valid - the concept of a food shortage is a fallacy).
I think 50 TIMES less gun crimes IS effective, that's 98% less...
Depends. How did the overall homicide rate compare? If you don't take that into account, then it could be that the relative rate of homicides was the same, but murderers in the UK used other methods because guns weren't as accessible.
That said, I'd be surprised if the overall homicide rate is as high. Why? Because a gun is a very impersonal way to kill someone. You can do it from a reasonable distance away, you can do it by accident a good bit easier, and you can do it in a random manner via drive by shootings. It's also a considerably more effective way to do it, since firing a gun requires less training to kill someone than using a knife or club (yes, you can pick up a knife or solid object and kill someone, but generally not with one strike).
I think it's "just" in the US that people are interested only in extravanganza...
Which is why Hollywood exports vastly more, successfully, than the rest of the world, right?
About the only other movie industry coming close to Hollywood's success is the Indian film industry.
I think Lycoris fits into a very nice niche of Linux users, ones who want to just turn something on and get work done.
And as long as that's considered a "niche" market Linux will never succeed.
Bravo to Lycoris for realizing that the vast majority of folks want their computer to function like a tool, not a toy. People don't want to have to figure things out on a daily basis to get their work done. Their work is NOT programming, system maintainance, etc. and they don't have the time to spend reading man pages, HOWTO's, and so forth.
Until more people in the Linux community realize this Linux will continue to be niche as a whole. Which is a shame.
The DMCA has formerly been largely unknown to the general populace, with only/. readers and hardcore computer enthusiasts making complaints
It's even worse than that... a lot of hardcore computer enthusiasts don't even know about it. I was arguing a point regarding copyright law and TiVo a few weeks ago to a friend, particularly how devices like TiVo may not be legally possible in the future. He stated "that could never happen" and didn't know anything about DMCA, SSSCA, or any of the other passed and unpassed laws in this regard.
This is a guy who does C coding on Unix for his day job and then goes home and does stuff on the computer at night too (which I suspect many/. readers do). He was one of the top ranked Quake players a few years ago, and is not stupid by any means. But the media has (unsurprisingly) said nothing about the DMCA, and the only commentary is about how bad Napster was for the poor starving artists.
The early popular analog joysticks from Thrustmaster were largely based off commercial designs (e.g. - F16, F15, etc). They used it as a selling point, being identical in feel to the "real thing".
They also cost >$100 when basic joysticks were running $10. The throttle was another $100 or two.
Nowadays some of the better joysticks aren't based off real fighter jock ones, but they're also way cheaper ($79 for the X45, about $30-40 for a combo joystick/throttle with numerous buttons and hats). Thrustmaster has also come down in price, because the market has expanded, plus competition has forced lower prices.
Who first invented the force feedback style controllers? I think Nintendo was the first to popularize them, but as this thread shows popularize != invented.
Think of how much more stable the motherboards would be if there were less chips present and less IRQs being shared.
Uh... you realize that most of the things you just whinged about are all on ONE chip, right? USB, IDE, and sound are all integrated into the south bridge of modern chipsets. The only thing you have to do is throw down traces (and maybe a few pots/resistors) to the physical connector.
As for IRQ sharing - gee... funny thing there... serial, parallel, and PS/2 ports all take up a IRQ each. USB takes up one. Period. Of course, the flip side is that IDE still sucks up an IRQ per channel, so I doubt there's any less IRQ sharing going on with this particular board.
And, no, sometimes you can't just turn these features off in the BIOS. Even worse, sometimes there's no way to reclaim the IRQs that are lost due to integrated functions! Check out some of the really bad implementations out there.
So quit buying bad implementations and then whining about it. I have a variety of mobos from a variety of manufacturers (Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, Iwill) and they all work fine in this regard.
Frankly, getting rid of legacy is good. If we could just be rid of the damn 16-bit BIOS things would be a whole lot better, at least in theory.
No, the mobo has several built in USB controllers. Five to be exact.
And I don't get why people are jonesing over so many built in ports either... put 2-4 on the back, a couple on the front, and then buy USB hubs as needed. You'll probably need the power boost anyway.
Wish monitors still had USB built in (and there are some, but they're rare) - but price pressure and the slow acceptance of USB 2-3 years ago made that flop.
If you really must have serial or parallel ports, USB-to-Serial and USB-to-Parallel cables work very well and are cheap.
I've been wondering about these... how do they work? Do you connect it up and have a driver that intercepts all traffic to COMx and redirects it to the USB port?
How well do they work? (Yes, I know, you said "very well" - but really, have you run into software that expects to talk to a serial port and won't work with a serialUSB connector?)
Seriously hoping for a reply here. I have some software that doesn't like the serial ports on a couple boxes of mine, so if it'd connect to USB I'd be happier.
DIN-5 was too big, realistically. You save a rather large bit of space by using a DIN-9 instead. This makes a huge difference in places where space is at a particular premium - notebooks and super-small form factor PCs.
For the same matter USB uses less space than even DIN-9.
I do want to smack IBM for (amongst many things regarding the PC) making the mouse and keyboard connector identical. At least they've been putting them in the same place relative to each other for the past few years.
Now if the damn sound jacks would have meaningful, readable-while-under-the-desk labels so you don't jack the speakers into the wrong port.
A small handfile isn't going to make a dent in the ring in enough time to matter. You're talking about a ring that is too small for your finger and is constricting bloodflow on both sides. The flesh is going to be swollen around the ring, preventing any kind of realistic filing effort.
Not to mention that, even if you could, a small hand file (which is generally made of steel) would take more than "patience". It'd take days, since you're using two materials of very similar hardness. Your finger isn't likely to last that long if you've let it go that far.
Best bet would be to go into a very cold room/environment and hope that enough blood is drawn out of your extremeties to let you take the ring off. Then you get to either lose weight or buy a new ring, because you're not going to get that sucker resized.
Re:Military threats promote innovation
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 2
What we have here it the ultimate in air superiority. We can see everything they do, and plop a laser-guided bomb down into their tent twenty-five minutes after they get ballsy enough to set it up. What is left to innovate?
Oh, you're right. There's nothing left to innovate in the military field. So lets just stop R&D. After all, that worked wonderfully for the Islamic countries (yes, go read your history - they ceased innovating in the 1300s-1400s and were reluctant to adopt Western military strategies even after having their asses handed to them repeatedly).
Take out the sats and tell me just how good the air superiority is now. Realize that eventually someone will design a highly man portable anti-air rocket that can hit stuff flying at up to 100,000 feet. And after that one that's capable of knocking out sats. Also realize that "stealth" planes are detectable with the proper radar system (which hasn't been designed yet in small scale... but right now you can "track" them by watching UHF signals go out to any area they fly over).
What a load of crap. There's plenty left to innovate, although I'll agree that most of it is not in the air superiority camp. You can't control urban guerillas using air superiority (that is, if you wish for the area to still be urban afterwards). You can't find the religious zealot who's strapped enough C4 to themselves to take out a city block with satellites. And, most importantly, you can't rely on satellites to always be there or you've created a single system dependancy that can (and will) be eliminated in time of war.
Do we need to watch everybody, all the time, and have the capibility to take out people at any place on the globe at any moment in time?
No, and this is not about becoming fascist, despite your attempts to portray it as such. It's about being able to ensure our safety. Even more, it's about being able to ensure your children's safety.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I suggest that you go read some of the other links and see just how many drugs are used without us knowing how they work.
Have fun avoiding all of them.
Yes, you should know about what medicines you are taking. You should make an informed decision on whether or not that medicine is the best thing for your circumstances. But the blanket statement you made was, well, silly.
I would suggest that you do have narcolepsy or chronic fatigue syndrome, just a very mild case of it.
Read some of my other posts on this thread - I have narcolepsy and am on provigil. I can stay awake through some bouts of sleepiness, but not all. And I have what is considered "moderate" narcolepsy.
Talk to your doctor, get a referral to a sleep clinic. Trust me, it's worth it.
Provigil keeps you awake. Period. They've done tests and there are NO negative side effects that anyone's found out to at least 72 hours.
I take it as prescribed, for narcolepsy. I can't personally attest to the above, since 200 mg pills don't even keep me awake for 12 hours, much less 72.
Ever heard of narcolepsy? It's a medical disorder where you fall asleep all the time during the day, regardless of how much sleep you've already gotten. Varies from mild (merely drowsy) to severe (sudden, unavoidable episodes of sleep with little or no warning).
I have it. I'm on Provigil too. I got on it as soon as it was FDA approved. Why? Because the most common prescription for narcolepsy prior to Provigil was Ridalin. Yeah, the same thing they give to treat ADD. It's also a narcotic and addictive.
Provigil doesn't work perfectly for me - I take a 200 mg pill in the morning and usually wind up sleepy in the afternoon - but it works a helluva lot better than Ridalin, isn't addictive (as best the medical industry can tell), and it lets me actually do work rather than falling asleep constantly. Lets me do things like drive safely too. And I only have "moderate" narcolepsy - I know when I'm getting tired, but I'll go to sleep for 15-30 minutes whenever possible. And without treatment it's impossible for me not to.
The fact of the matter is, nobody knows exactly why we sleep, what we need it for, or why some people have sleeping problems (narcolepsy and insomnia). Expecting to know why a drug works when you don't know why the symptoms exist is hopeless. At best you can hope that finding a drug that treats the symptoms will let you figure them both out.
It's a lot easier to bow out of a market when it's a small portion of your total revenue or profit.
The IBM Storage Systems division is/was a part of the Hardware divsion. That division also includes PC, notebook, mainframe, and various other hardware sales. It, as a whole, accounted for ~39% of the total revenue and ~29% of the total profit of IBM for last year (as per their latest 10K).
Now those aren't numbers to sneeze at, but consider that the HD division is a segment of the entire Hardware division. And while the numbers aren't split out, if you read the 10K you'll see they blame a lot of the decline in revenue for the Hardware group on pressures in the PC and HDD market.
Given all of that, IBM can look at the long term market and spin off a portion of itself to an independant company which it retains a large share of. Realize some immediate cash gains, and you reduce the risk you are exposing the company to. If that 3rd party company folds, then you have a tax write off on an investment, and it doesn't look nearly as bad on the balance sheet.
But the important thing here is that IBM has this option. The storage device market is not their lifeblood. If you released a holographic storage system tomorrow that blew the entire HDD market out of the water, IBM would be hurt, but not fatally impaired.
The same is not true for most of the companies you mentioned. They're looking at potential extinction (particularly the middle men in the entertainment business - e.g. the studios and record labels). So they're fighting for their lives. They can't just "leave the market" or "restructure their business". There is no new market and no new structure for them to go to and retain anything even vaguely like what they have now.
I deeply disagree with their attempts to have government prop their industries up, but I'm also realistic. Cornered animals don't fight nice.
but the intro they just love to shaft people with
Duh. I wouldn't be surprised if the CS130x series has turned into a flunk-out course as are most of the other freshman courses. When I graduated several years back (under the previous CS curriculum), the CS130x series was one of the most "popular" courses to take. Mainly because most of the other colleges had made it a requirement for other coursework.
Ok, no more watching The Matrix for you.
Technically, every life form destroys the things that keep it alive. Ecosystems are self-balancing that way - too many herbivores without predators and the herbivores will starve themselves out. Too many predators and the same thing. And they can, indeed, utterly destroy the environment in the process. Look at what goats do to areas sometime.
Of course, Mr. Darling isn't filtering what he observes to support a non-deity influenced view, right?
Uh huh.
It goes on on both sides. I'll happily admit that I routinely dismiss highly religious people because I feel that it blinds them to what I consider fundamental truths. But I'm bet they feel the same way about atheists too.
Yes, believing in a "deity-influenced" universe means that you have put some blinders on. You will look for proofs that support your position (which is basically looking for very low percentage odds on certain things, or non-sensical behavior in creatures or systems).
By the same token, being a staunch atheist means you will look for any reason to refute the existance of a deity.
Me? I rather think the latter is more sensible, but I'm an atheist and thus biased.
Well, this is true, but I for one would prefer not to be in NYC if Indian Point melts down (for example).
Melts down how?
Do you even understand how US nuclear plants are built? Or how that design varies from Russian and French designed plants?
In case of a catastrophic failure, US plants are self-terminating. In traditional French (and thus, Russian) plant design, if you disable all the safeties and let things go then yes, the nuclear reaction can runaway and you'll have issues. In US design, you disable all the safeties then the rods will slam into the core and shutdown the plant. Forever. (Or at least until you replace the core and the rods). It's simply not possible to have a runaway reaction.
And, of course, you could build new plants using a pebble reactor design which is also inherently safe, but due to different reasons (the reaction mass isn't high enough to go critical in the first place).
But you, like the rest of the general public, doesn't know any of this. Instead you buy into the hype about meltdowns and radioactivity and want "safe" forms of energy. You know. Fossil fuels. That stuff that puts out tons (literally) of pollution yearly, plus radioactivity as well (funny how that never gets mentioned -- you don't think that there are radioactive isotopes in coal and oil?)
Yes, there's solar, wind, and tidal, but they all cost considerably more and have their own environmental effects (most of which haven't been adequately measured due to a lack of data).
Ok, I never played M.U.L.E., but I've never understood why people whined about PC joysticks... yes, they generally sucked. The analog joystick port stinks. But if you want clearly defined directions, the keypad has 8 very clearly defined ones and is pretty darn intuitive to use.
That said, most of the good joysticks nowadays are USB, not analog gameport. They're digital, but generally have enough resolution so that they function as well as a traditional analog joystick (or steering wheel, or throttle, or whatever). Look at Gravis, ThrustMaster, Saitek, and even Microsoft for some good joysticks. No, they're not as simple as the Atari joystick, but I always found the classic Atari 2400 joysticks to be rather dodgy myself (easily broken, not exactly accurate, etc.)
in Belgium we will have gotten rid of all nuclear energy facilities by 2015
Good, so you can go back to those wonderfully polluting, radiation-into-atmosphere emitting fossil fuel plants.
Or maybe you have tidal, solar, and wind plants available. Which just means your power bills will go up 10x.
Still happy?
It's more than just fuel costs... there's also issues with warfare. There were numerous stories regarding Somalia and Ethiopia a few years back about how Western countries were sending food to be distributed to the starving populace. And it was rotting on the docks.
Why? Because various warlords wouldn't allow the supply caravans through their territory, or wanted "protection money", etc. to ensure safe passage. Which wasn't budgeted for. So people on the other side starved.
Yeah, I guess with enough fuel you could just airdrop the stuff, which leads back to your argument (which is valid - the concept of a food shortage is a fallacy).
I think 50 TIMES less gun crimes IS effective, that's 98% less...
Depends. How did the overall homicide rate compare? If you don't take that into account, then it could be that the relative rate of homicides was the same, but murderers in the UK used other methods because guns weren't as accessible.
That said, I'd be surprised if the overall homicide rate is as high. Why? Because a gun is a very impersonal way to kill someone. You can do it from a reasonable distance away, you can do it by accident a good bit easier, and you can do it in a random manner via drive by shootings. It's also a considerably more effective way to do it, since firing a gun requires less training to kill someone than using a knife or club (yes, you can pick up a knife or solid object and kill someone, but generally not with one strike).
I think it's "just" in the US that people are interested only in extravanganza...
Which is why Hollywood exports vastly more, successfully, than the rest of the world, right?
About the only other movie industry coming close to Hollywood's success is the Indian film industry.
I think Lycoris fits into a very nice niche of Linux users, ones who want to just turn something on and get work done.
And as long as that's considered a "niche" market Linux will never succeed.
Bravo to Lycoris for realizing that the vast majority of folks want their computer to function like a tool, not a toy. People don't want to have to figure things out on a daily basis to get their work done. Their work is NOT programming, system maintainance, etc. and they don't have the time to spend reading man pages, HOWTO's, and so forth.
Until more people in the Linux community realize this Linux will continue to be niche as a whole. Which is a shame.
The DMCA has formerly been largely unknown to the general populace, with only /. readers and hardcore computer enthusiasts making complaints
/. readers do). He was one of the top ranked Quake players a few years ago, and is not stupid by any means. But the media has (unsurprisingly) said nothing about the DMCA, and the only commentary is about how bad Napster was for the poor starving artists.
It's even worse than that... a lot of hardcore computer enthusiasts don't even know about it. I was arguing a point regarding copyright law and TiVo a few weeks ago to a friend, particularly how devices like TiVo may not be legally possible in the future. He stated "that could never happen" and didn't know anything about DMCA, SSSCA, or any of the other passed and unpassed laws in this regard.
This is a guy who does C coding on Unix for his day job and then goes home and does stuff on the computer at night too (which I suspect many
The early popular analog joysticks from Thrustmaster were largely based off commercial designs (e.g. - F16, F15, etc). They used it as a selling point, being identical in feel to the "real thing".
They also cost >$100 when basic joysticks were running $10. The throttle was another $100 or two.
Nowadays some of the better joysticks aren't based off real fighter jock ones, but they're also way cheaper ($79 for the X45, about $30-40 for a combo joystick/throttle with numerous buttons and hats). Thrustmaster has also come down in price, because the market has expanded, plus competition has forced lower prices.
Who first invented the force feedback style controllers? I think Nintendo was the first to popularize them, but as this thread shows popularize != invented.
Yeah, it's so much better to unplug a PS/2 mouse, plug it back in, and have the entire system lock.
Think of how much more stable the motherboards would be if there were less chips present and less IRQs being shared.
Uh... you realize that most of the things you just whinged about are all on ONE chip, right? USB, IDE, and sound are all integrated into the south bridge of modern chipsets. The only thing you have to do is throw down traces (and maybe a few pots/resistors) to the physical connector.
As for IRQ sharing - gee... funny thing there... serial, parallel, and PS/2 ports all take up a IRQ each. USB takes up one. Period. Of course, the flip side is that IDE still sucks up an IRQ per channel, so I doubt there's any less IRQ sharing going on with this particular board.
And, no, sometimes you can't just turn these features off in the BIOS. Even worse, sometimes there's no way to reclaim the IRQs that are lost due to integrated functions! Check out some of the really bad implementations out there.
So quit buying bad implementations and then whining about it. I have a variety of mobos from a variety of manufacturers (Abit, Asus, Gigabyte, Iwill) and they all work fine in this regard.
Frankly, getting rid of legacy is good. If we could just be rid of the damn 16-bit BIOS things would be a whole lot better, at least in theory.
No, the mobo has several built in USB controllers. Five to be exact.
And I don't get why people are jonesing over so many built in ports either... put 2-4 on the back, a couple on the front, and then buy USB hubs as needed. You'll probably need the power boost anyway.
Wish monitors still had USB built in (and there are some, but they're rare) - but price pressure and the slow acceptance of USB 2-3 years ago made that flop.
If you really must have serial or parallel ports, USB-to-Serial and USB-to-Parallel cables work very well and are cheap.
I've been wondering about these... how do they work? Do you connect it up and have a driver that intercepts all traffic to COMx and redirects it to the USB port?
How well do they work? (Yes, I know, you said "very well" - but really, have you run into software that expects to talk to a serial port and won't work with a serialUSB connector?)
Seriously hoping for a reply here. I have some software that doesn't like the serial ports on a couple boxes of mine, so if it'd connect to USB I'd be happier.
The H isn't a home key. asdf and jkl; are.
If you were meaning to include other keys between the two, you forgot g too.
DIN-5 was too big, realistically. You save a rather large bit of space by using a DIN-9 instead. This makes a huge difference in places where space is at a particular premium - notebooks and super-small form factor PCs.
For the same matter USB uses less space than even DIN-9.
I do want to smack IBM for (amongst many things regarding the PC) making the mouse and keyboard connector identical. At least they've been putting them in the same place relative to each other for the past few years.
Now if the damn sound jacks would have meaningful, readable-while-under-the-desk labels so you don't jack the speakers into the wrong port.
Having just gotten married... do you have any idea how much it would cost to have a wedding with nearly 1400 guests?
(Ok, the smart ass answer is "about the same for 10 guests"... the reception is the killer)
This got modded up to 3, Insightful?
A small handfile isn't going to make a dent in the ring in enough time to matter. You're talking about a ring that is too small for your finger and is constricting bloodflow on both sides. The flesh is going to be swollen around the ring, preventing any kind of realistic filing effort.
Not to mention that, even if you could, a small hand file (which is generally made of steel) would take more than "patience". It'd take days, since you're using two materials of very similar hardness. Your finger isn't likely to last that long if you've let it go that far.
Best bet would be to go into a very cold room/environment and hope that enough blood is drawn out of your extremeties to let you take the ring off. Then you get to either lose weight or buy a new ring, because you're not going to get that sucker resized.
What we have here it the ultimate in air superiority. We can see everything they do, and plop a laser-guided bomb down into their tent twenty-five minutes after they get ballsy enough to set it up. What is left to innovate?
Oh, you're right. There's nothing left to innovate in the military field. So lets just stop R&D. After all, that worked wonderfully for the Islamic countries (yes, go read your history - they ceased innovating in the 1300s-1400s and were reluctant to adopt Western military strategies even after having their asses handed to them repeatedly).
Take out the sats and tell me just how good the air superiority is now. Realize that eventually someone will design a highly man portable anti-air rocket that can hit stuff flying at up to 100,000 feet. And after that one that's capable of knocking out sats. Also realize that "stealth" planes are detectable with the proper radar system (which hasn't been designed yet in small scale... but right now you can "track" them by watching UHF signals go out to any area they fly over).
What a load of crap. There's plenty left to innovate, although I'll agree that most of it is not in the air superiority camp. You can't control urban guerillas using air superiority (that is, if you wish for the area to still be urban afterwards). You can't find the religious zealot who's strapped enough C4 to themselves to take out a city block with satellites. And, most importantly, you can't rely on satellites to always be there or you've created a single system dependancy that can (and will) be eliminated in time of war.
Do we need to watch everybody, all the time, and have the capibility to take out people at any place on the globe at any moment in time?
No, and this is not about becoming fascist, despite your attempts to portray it as such. It's about being able to ensure our safety. Even more, it's about being able to ensure your children's safety.