Yes you can back up all your stuff, but you can't play it anywhere else. This drive isn't about how much data you can store... it's about how much medie you can store and use. There's a difference.
Produce no results? How many "cured" cancer patients do you know? I've yet to ever hear any doctor say a patient is "cured". They always say the cancer could reappear. That doesn't sound much like a cure to me.
I also think you're mistaking the meaning of "results". Results have varying degrees, and while some "modern" medicine does have more effective, long-term results, you'll find plenty of people who use homeopathic options also have results. Most of those people also note a better standard of living during treatment as a result of homeopathic treatments. These are people who use only homeopathic options, and people who use both modern medicine and "natural" medicine. It's a known fact that marijuana lessens the negative side effects of cancer treatment, for example. Is the person smoking a joint after their chemo a nutcase or quack because pot isn't a modern medicine? Will the pot cure the cancer, no. But it definitely has a result for the cancer patient. I think you'll find most of the "nutcases and/or quacks" aren't people who say modern medicine is bad, but that modern medicine should be supplimented by natural remedies, or vice versa, as the case indicates.
You also seem to be discounting placebo effect. Placebo effect can be very powerful, and I'm sure you can find some cases where a person was "cured" with a placebo. Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean there were no results.
There are several stores in my area that have Wii on the shelf as of a couple weeks ago. Maybe the Christmas glut has been met in my area, but I havne't had any difficulty with finding them in the last month or so. So approximately half price is right.
They can't call it "juice" they have to say "juice drink" or some other distinction. It still gets a large portion of the consumers who are buying it though. And the ones who DO know the difference and buy are those people who seem to think kids don't like real juice. I've never understood it, personally.
Patent pending does not imply they won't keep the technology available to use on other projects. I know nothing about GravityZoo so they may or may not be "evil" in the sense of patent abuse, but just because they have applied for patents doesn't automatically mean they are.
You're probably right, there are weapons that can fire as many rounds per second as assault rifles. Maybe that makes the distinction of what to classify as assault a little more difficult, but if you read the rest of my post, I think the point is more clear. Intended use is the most important factor.
Assault weapons are typically designed to be small, mobile, and have a high rate of fire. They are also typically easier to break down and clean than "traditionally" designed hunting weapons because of the requirement to be field serviceable. All of these factors need to be considered, not just how many bullets can it fire. I'd still wager the simplest and most effective method for determination of "deadliest" would be just that fact; how many bullets does it fire. You could get more specific and say how many bullets does it fire without conscious effort, which would make it easier to classify those weapons that are capable of high rates but only if the shooter is trying to do so.
It's a difficult task to classify these weapons and I'm glad it's not up to me. If it were up to me, there would only be bolt-action and pump-action rifles and shotguns legal for public use in this country today. I can fire 4 rounds in 12 seconds from a bolt action 30-06 rifle. If I can't kill what I want to with that, I don't deserve to kill it.
Pistols are another subject all together, but again, I'd limit sales of those drastically too.
You don't have to go to Vietnam to learn a lesson from it. I didn't go to Vietnam either. Of course you meant to be supportive of my comment, I'm sure.
The government cracks down those weapons for reasons other than "it puts the military and police" at risk. I believe those factors do play a role, but I think the primary reason is that large caliber weapons, and assault weapons with burst fire put everyone at risk.
There may not be any crimes on record in CA that used.50 caliber weapons, but I'd be willing to bet there's more than one accidental shooting that involved one. Large caliber weapons go through things, and keep going. A.22 round will not penetrate as much as a.50 caliber with the equivalent (ratio for the weight of the slug) powder behind it and that's why large caliber guns are scary. If I shoot you with a desert eagle at 30 feet, I've sure enough stopped you, but I've quite possibly stopped the driver of the car on the street outside too. If I shoot you with a.22 at that range, I might have stopped you, but it's very unlikely I've also gone through the wall and the car and stopped it's driver too.
Automatic (assault) weapons have a similar issue. If I'm shooting at a person with a single shot weapon, I have to consciously pull the trigger every time. If I stop the person with one shot, odds are I'm not going to shoot again. With an automatic weapon though, I pull the trigger once and I have 2, 3, 5, 6 rounds for every time I do that. Furthermore, automatic weapons are much harder to aim with and have any significantly tight pattern. They kick and track with each successive round, and therefore the bullets don't go where I'm intending them to go without a LOT of practice. Most people who want those types of weapons do so for the express purpose of spraying as much hot metal into an environment as they possibly can. That endangers anyone within a half mile (or even a couple miles depending upon the weapon) range of the shooter. Intended victim or not, someone else is likely to get hit with at least one of those extra rounds. Most gun-related deaths in the US are accidental, not deliberate. With more bullets, and bigger bullets, the statistics just go up.
Where does the post say "more deadly". The post simply said that assualt rifles, as a general rule, have "low stopping power". Deadly is difficult to quantify but I'd suggest that a simple means of doing so is rounds per second or rounds per minute, which obviously puts the M-16, AK-47 and other assault weapons well in the lead over any rifle traditionally designed for hunting animals.
Sure you can change an assault rifle into a single shot semi-automatic rifle fairly easily. You can also convert many single shot semi-automatic hunting rifles to fully automatic weapons. Whether a weapon looks scary doesn't necessarily make it an effective weapon though, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the classification of "assault". Assault weapons are called such because of their intended use. IE whether or not they were designed as burst weapons, or as single shot weapons, or in cases such as assault shotguns whether or not they are intended for close range combat. It's all about intended use, not how something looks.
Fast enough to keep you alive when people are shooting at you? I'm betting the system has minimal gui involved, just the basics so it can display a menu system and then directly to the selection of maps or whatever, so a full-fledged KDE or Gnome would be overkill anyway.
My guess is you could pay a lot less and have a better-functioning end product by buying COTS equipment specifically for your needs. The integration of most of these things into a "cohesive" system shouldn't take longer than 18 months.
"I'd rather do things right, but this decision is way over my level."
And thinking like that, it always will be way over your level. This isn't meant to be a troll or an insult, it's just a simple observation. People who settle for doing things the easy way, instead of the right way, never get beyond middle management, if they make it that far.
If you didn't wear your "I heart moose" t-shirt you wouldn't have a problem. Canadians don't take too kindly with people molesting the moose and a shirt like that makes you a prime suspect.
insurance industries in the campaign. They would have easily convinced insurace providers to throw some laundering, I mean lobbying, money at the issue.
Flame retardants are a huge issue in how quickly houses are destroyed by fires. A matter of minutes versus seconds for fires to spread in many cases. The faster a fire spreads the more insurance companies have to pay for damages. They would have certainly thrown closer to millions rather than low 6 figure numbers at the lobbyists.
To play devil's advocate here, the word "offer" doesn't have to be used for an explicit offer to be made. "Buy my car" and "Want to drive my car?" can both be offers without the word "offer".
Does DHCP explicitly imply an offer? I don't think so, but that's why there's debate. There is definitely an explicit offer when the SSID is broadcast, whether the owner intended for that offer to be there or not. That authorization is the problem because as we all know, most users don't have a clue how it all works. And they shouldn't need to have a clue. Router manufacturers should just have security enabled by default, then there would be no confusion. I don't think the DHCP issue is where the offer is made, but in the broadcast of an open SSID. If I wanted to let people use my WAP I'd give it an obvious name of "free-to-use". Conversely if I wanted it not used, I'd name it "not-for-you" and lock it down.
I don't lock my network down, but I've disabled broadcasting and enabled mac filtering so it effectively limits people using my network unless they're really trying. If someone does use my network, I'm not going to complain, but I'm certainly not making it easy for any average user with a laptop.
Shops and pubs have implied permission because they are businesses that presumably want you to enter. You can't say the same thing about a person's private residence. A WAP, in this case, is more like an open door on a private residence rather than an open door on a business establishment.
The problem comes in that using an AP doesn't imply just receiving a signal. The locked door here is not receiving the signal, it's in sending one back. The analogy is more like using the light emanating from an open door/window. Your example of satellite signals is just sitting outside the door/window and using the light. Accessing the internet through the AP, however, is more like walking through the door to shift the lampshade so the light points out the door.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you can back up all your stuff, but you can't play it anywhere else. This drive isn't about how much data you can store... it's about how much medie you can store and use. There's a difference.
Produce no results? How many "cured" cancer patients do you know? I've yet to ever hear any doctor say a patient is "cured". They always say the cancer could reappear. That doesn't sound much like a cure to me.
I also think you're mistaking the meaning of "results". Results have varying degrees, and while some "modern" medicine does have more effective, long-term results, you'll find plenty of people who use homeopathic options also have results. Most of those people also note a better standard of living during treatment as a result of homeopathic treatments. These are people who use only homeopathic options, and people who use both modern medicine and "natural" medicine. It's a known fact that marijuana lessens the negative side effects of cancer treatment, for example. Is the person smoking a joint after their chemo a nutcase or quack because pot isn't a modern medicine? Will the pot cure the cancer, no. But it definitely has a result for the cancer patient. I think you'll find most of the "nutcases and/or quacks" aren't people who say modern medicine is bad, but that modern medicine should be supplimented by natural remedies, or vice versa, as the case indicates.
You also seem to be discounting placebo effect. Placebo effect can be very powerful, and I'm sure you can find some cases where a person was "cured" with a placebo. Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean there were no results.
There are several stores in my area that have Wii on the shelf as of a couple weeks ago. Maybe the Christmas glut has been met in my area, but I havne't had any difficulty with finding them in the last month or so. So approximately half price is right.
They can't call it "juice" they have to say "juice drink" or some other distinction. It still gets a large portion of the consumers who are buying it though. And the ones who DO know the difference and buy are those people who seem to think kids don't like real juice. I've never understood it, personally.
The meanest, the badest low down mo fo around.
Who is the master?
So does Microsoft, and as far as I know, IE has tabs, and other windows in Windows have had tabs since Win95 at least.
I wonder if someone has a beef with Apple, or they just seemed the least likely to go to court over the issue?
Patent pending does not imply they won't keep the technology available to use on other projects. I know nothing about GravityZoo so they may or may not be "evil" in the sense of patent abuse, but just because they have applied for patents doesn't automatically mean they are.
I don't know about you, but the term "fist" mentioned on slashdot brings mental images I'd rather not have. Thanks a lot!
I'm working on it but it's slow going. I'll completely agree with picking your battles.
You're probably right, there are weapons that can fire as many rounds per second as assault rifles. Maybe that makes the distinction of what to classify as assault a little more difficult, but if you read the rest of my post, I think the point is more clear. Intended use is the most important factor.
Assault weapons are typically designed to be small, mobile, and have a high rate of fire. They are also typically easier to break down and clean than "traditionally" designed hunting weapons because of the requirement to be field serviceable. All of these factors need to be considered, not just how many bullets can it fire. I'd still wager the simplest and most effective method for determination of "deadliest" would be just that fact; how many bullets does it fire. You could get more specific and say how many bullets does it fire without conscious effort, which would make it easier to classify those weapons that are capable of high rates but only if the shooter is trying to do so.
It's a difficult task to classify these weapons and I'm glad it's not up to me. If it were up to me, there would only be bolt-action and pump-action rifles and shotguns legal for public use in this country today. I can fire 4 rounds in 12 seconds from a bolt action 30-06 rifle. If I can't kill what I want to with that, I don't deserve to kill it.
Pistols are another subject all together, but again, I'd limit sales of those drastically too.
You don't have to go to Vietnam to learn a lesson from it. I didn't go to Vietnam either. Of course you meant to be supportive of my comment, I'm sure.
The government cracks down those weapons for reasons other than "it puts the military and police" at risk. I believe those factors do play a role, but I think the primary reason is that large caliber weapons, and assault weapons with burst fire put everyone at risk.
.50 caliber weapons, but I'd be willing to bet there's more than one accidental shooting that involved one. Large caliber weapons go through things, and keep going. A .22 round will not penetrate as much as a .50 caliber with the equivalent (ratio for the weight of the slug) powder behind it and that's why large caliber guns are scary. If I shoot you with a desert eagle at 30 feet, I've sure enough stopped you, but I've quite possibly stopped the driver of the car on the street outside too. If I shoot you with a .22 at that range, I might have stopped you, but it's very unlikely I've also gone through the wall and the car and stopped it's driver too.
There may not be any crimes on record in CA that used
Automatic (assault) weapons have a similar issue. If I'm shooting at a person with a single shot weapon, I have to consciously pull the trigger every time. If I stop the person with one shot, odds are I'm not going to shoot again. With an automatic weapon though, I pull the trigger once and I have 2, 3, 5, 6 rounds for every time I do that. Furthermore, automatic weapons are much harder to aim with and have any significantly tight pattern. They kick and track with each successive round, and therefore the bullets don't go where I'm intending them to go without a LOT of practice. Most people who want those types of weapons do so for the express purpose of spraying as much hot metal into an environment as they possibly can. That endangers anyone within a half mile (or even a couple miles depending upon the weapon) range of the shooter. Intended victim or not, someone else is likely to get hit with at least one of those extra rounds. Most gun-related deaths in the US are accidental, not deliberate. With more bullets, and bigger bullets, the statistics just go up.
Where does the post say "more deadly". The post simply said that assualt rifles, as a general rule, have "low stopping power". Deadly is difficult to quantify but I'd suggest that a simple means of doing so is rounds per second or rounds per minute, which obviously puts the M-16, AK-47 and other assault weapons well in the lead over any rifle traditionally designed for hunting animals.
Sure you can change an assault rifle into a single shot semi-automatic rifle fairly easily. You can also convert many single shot semi-automatic hunting rifles to fully automatic weapons. Whether a weapon looks scary doesn't necessarily make it an effective weapon though, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the classification of "assault". Assault weapons are called such because of their intended use. IE whether or not they were designed as burst weapons, or as single shot weapons, or in cases such as assault shotguns whether or not they are intended for close range combat. It's all about intended use, not how something looks.
Fast enough to keep you alive when people are shooting at you? I'm betting the system has minimal gui involved, just the basics so it can display a menu system and then directly to the selection of maps or whatever, so a full-fledged KDE or Gnome would be overkill anyway.
Embedded systems are the way to go.
My guess is you could pay a lot less and have a better-functioning end product by buying COTS equipment specifically for your needs. The integration of most of these things into a "cohesive" system shouldn't take longer than 18 months.
"Force-on-force the US Army is incredibly effective, but playing insurgent-bait sucks."
A lesson most of us with military backgrounds learned from Vietnam. Somehow the current administration didn't get the memo though.
"I'd rather do things right, but this decision is way over my level."
And thinking like that, it always will be way over your level. This isn't meant to be a troll or an insult, it's just a simple observation. People who settle for doing things the easy way, instead of the right way, never get beyond middle management, if they make it that far.
Good luck.
Please explain to me how "all your users Microsoft equipped" happens for a website unless it's accessible only by an internal network.
Seriously, there is no such public domain space.
"$200k is chump chain."
Or chump change even.
If you didn't wear your "I heart moose" t-shirt you wouldn't have a problem. Canadians don't take too kindly with people molesting the moose and a shirt like that makes you a prime suspect.
insurance industries in the campaign. They would have easily convinced insurace providers to throw some laundering, I mean lobbying, money at the issue.
Flame retardants are a huge issue in how quickly houses are destroyed by fires. A matter of minutes versus seconds for fires to spread in many cases. The faster a fire spreads the more insurance companies have to pay for damages. They would have certainly thrown closer to millions rather than low 6 figure numbers at the lobbyists.
To play devil's advocate here, the word "offer" doesn't have to be used for an explicit offer to be made. "Buy my car" and "Want to drive my car?" can both be offers without the word "offer".
Does DHCP explicitly imply an offer? I don't think so, but that's why there's debate. There is definitely an explicit offer when the SSID is broadcast, whether the owner intended for that offer to be there or not. That authorization is the problem because as we all know, most users don't have a clue how it all works. And they shouldn't need to have a clue. Router manufacturers should just have security enabled by default, then there would be no confusion. I don't think the DHCP issue is where the offer is made, but in the broadcast of an open SSID. If I wanted to let people use my WAP I'd give it an obvious name of "free-to-use". Conversely if I wanted it not used, I'd name it "not-for-you" and lock it down.
I don't lock my network down, but I've disabled broadcasting and enabled mac filtering so it effectively limits people using my network unless they're really trying. If someone does use my network, I'm not going to complain, but I'm certainly not making it easy for any average user with a laptop.
Where? Though it wouldn't surprise me to find out it's true, would you care to cite a reference? Otherwise, I'll say that's an "urban myth".
Shops and pubs have implied permission because they are businesses that presumably want you to enter. You can't say the same thing about a person's private residence. A WAP, in this case, is more like an open door on a private residence rather than an open door on a business establishment.
The problem comes in that using an AP doesn't imply just receiving a signal. The locked door here is not receiving the signal, it's in sending one back. The analogy is more like using the light emanating from an open door/window. Your example of satellite signals is just sitting outside the door/window and using the light. Accessing the internet through the AP, however, is more like walking through the door to shift the lampshade so the light points out the door.