Actually, the most dangerous job is supposedly Alaskan crab fisherman, followed closely (and probably not in the right order) by truck drivers, loggers, miners, and firefighters.
Fucking troll. I can come up with three off the top of my head.
How about George Washington Carver, who revolutionized agriculture by improving crop yields and finding the first non-food/clothing applications for plant products, as well as introducing plastics into automobile manufacturing and starting the development of the first synthetic rubber?
Or Lewis Latimer, of Thomas Edison's research team, who literally wrote the book on electric lighting (Incandescent Electric Lighting, 1890) and invented the threaded light bulb socket?
Last, but by no means least, there's Marie Curie. If I have to explain her importance to you, you shouldn't be reading Slashdot.
Either that, or it's impossible to travel backward to before the time machine was invented. Perhaps time travel requires a transmitter and a receiver to work?
Heh, I should have said 'giver' and 'receiver' and linked to goatse.cx!
You're absolutely right; you'd be trading based on information that was not yet publicly available. Getting it by way of time travel is probably just as illegal as getting it from the board of directors a week before a press conference.
Of course, it would be really hard to start legal proceedings against someone on the basis that they used time travel to violate SEC regulations - at least until such time as time travel technology exists. So, if you're going to try this, all you have to do is go back in time far enough that the statute of limitations will have run out by the time that time travel is invented.
On the other hand, you still might be hosed if someone goes back and hands the time machine blueprints to someone else, pushing the invention of time travel backward. I'm going to stop before I give myself a headache.
Oh, and you meant "whomever". Where have all the grammar nazis gone...
Are you sure? Let's simplify the sentence: All that Covad would have to do is X.
'Is' the verb, and 'X' the object. The whole mess 'All that Covad would have to do' is the subject. 'All' is the noun, and the rest is a clause specifying all of what. In this clause, Covad is the subject. Thus, if we were replacing it with a pronoun, the correct choice would seem to be 'who', not 'whom'.
I could be missing a subtle difference, but another sentence along the same lines is "All (that) we are saying is give peace a chance." In this one, it's more obvious that 'we' functions as a subject and should not be 'us'.
Last time I tried to configure a desktop, I had to delete the monitor to get to the price they showed on the home page. I'm terribly sorry I didn't try again today before posting my observation. I apologize for any discomfort this may have caused you.
Of course, I didn't expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition.
If I understand correctly, all Covad (or whoever) would have to do is offer voice and it wouldn't be a problem. Surely they could slap together some kind of VoIP thing and offer it to their DSL customers, then BellSouth would still have to share.
I have a C3-800 in my MAME machine and it handles that task pretty well. You're not going to be happy playing UT2003 on it, though. I'd imagine it's plenty of juice for office tasks, email, web surfing, MP3 playing, and the like.
I have no idea where they get their $699 prices from... frankly I find Dell's pricing scheme very misleading.
I agree. To get the "base price", I think you have to pick the lowest-cost alternative under every single option. For desktops, that means no monitor, a piddling of memory, the crappiest keyboard/mouse available, and so forth; I'm not sure what kind of notebook config you wind up with doing that.
I was thinking there were some Sony sets that weren't HD ready, but did have a 16:9 squeeze mode for DVDs. Am I crazy and such sets don't really exist? Or if they do, do you know if all 480 lines are resolvable on their screens?
Of course, since the whole point of these threads is discussing HDTVs, I don't guess it really matters.
As a point of reference, when I bought my 50" Toshiba 16:9 over a year ago (fall 2001), I only paid about $1700. Sears actually did a price match on the cheapest price I could find on Yahoo Shopping. When I calculated it out, I figured on needing at least a 54" 4:3 to match the image size, and couldn't find one that could be maneuvered into the den. There are two narrow doors at right angles to each other, just inches apart, which had to be negotiated. Incidentally, figuring out which TVs would fit, I was able to prove to my wife that geometry was not useless in everyday life.
The obvious caveat that nobody has pointed out to going 4:3 is that some of these sets will not "squeeze" the image (full res in the letterbox) like some of the Sony sets (including the one listed here) do.
Actually, I think I pointed that out on another post. The Sony sets that were 4:3 and would do the squeezing were both more expensive than the Toshiba I settled on, and too big to get into the room.
Good Lord. I think I paid about a quarter of that for some Acoustic Research cables that are every bit as good (if not better) as the Monster crap. Check your local Lowe's store, they probably still carry the AR stuff.
The smart buy right now, even for widescreen movie buffs, is to pick the widescreen HDTV size they like, and buy a 3:4 HDTV that can display a widescreen image the same size. The 3:4s are significantly cheaper, can display the widescreen image the same size, and finally, will not take a huge punishment on displaying older 3:4 content. The converse is not true.
Unless you're looking at RPTV's. A 55" 4:3 which can display letterbox movies the same size (and resolution; see my other post on this thread) as a 50" 16:9 is not significantly cheaper. It might even be more expensive; for instance, Sony is really proud of their 4:3 units which do 16:9 squeezing. On the other hand, the 55" 4:3 might be significantly larger, heavier, and more difficult to get through doors (this was one reason I bought a 50" 16:9).
Also, a big-screen is likely to be kept longer than a tube TV, and is more likely to still be in use as HDTV content becomes more pervasive, so the tradeoff in 4:3 picture size may be less of an issue. In my case, I have a prefectly functional older model 32" tube to watch ordinary TV; the widescreen is used almost entirely for movies and Enterprise. Now that my local CBS affiliate has their HD broadcast on line, it'll also get used this coming college football season.
To sum it up, everyone's viewing habits are different, and everyone isn't going to want the same kind of TV. Someone else isn't a moron because they choose what's right for themselves instead of what's right for you. If they choose to watch Jerry Springer, however, all bets are off!
He is talking about 16:9 movies! They are as big on a 32" 4:3 (even letterboxed) as they are on a 30" 16:9!!!!
But, if the 4:3 TV displays 16:9 by just turning off the electron guns to draw black rectangles top and bottom, the 16:9 will have better resolution. In this instance, the 4:3 which would normally display 480 lines will instead be displaying 360 lines.
The really good 4:3 TVs now typically will do 16:9 by 'squeezing' all 480 lines into the 16:9 area. This is better, but the 30" widescreen may still have higher resolution. The 4:3 TV (if it isn't HD-ready) may not have a tight enough dot pitch to really resolve all 480 lines in the 16:9 area. The widescreen, on the other hand, will be designed to resolve all 480 lines. In fact, since 99% of widescreens are HD-ready, it most likely will resolve far more.
But, assuming your monitor reports its size correctly over DDC, your video driver can handle that, and you use mostly scalable fonts, then you can remove the override.
Even if your monitor doesn't report its size correctly, you can set DisplaySize <width> <height> in your XF86Config-4 file to tell XFree the real size, and then remove the -dpi 100 or whatever it is from the Xservers file.
Also the next time you change jobs. Require that SS# is not used as your medical id.
I work for an HMO. We currently set up all our members with the SSN as part of the unique member number. This is going to become a huge project, as the new HIPAA legislation is going to require this to change. In fact, already one of our biggest groups (IBM) is requesting that we change all their members to randomly-assigned member numbers.
Of course, it was us I.T. folks who suggested that we start generating member numbers the last time we went through a system conversion, but management ignored us. Now it's going to be ten times harder to do. It's not always lazy programming, sometimes it's ignorant management.
Would I settle for say..a million bux and miss the opportunity to change a law that would benefit consumers everywhere?...yea, probably
Well, there's precious little chance of her getting a million bucks. Have you ever been on the receiving end of a class-action settlement? I once got a coupon for $5 off of Zip disks because of Iomega's poor handling of rebates (but by the time the coupons came around I had already ditched the drive after two replacements succumbed to click-o'death). Oh, and don't forget the price-gouging settlement against the record labels that will result in everyone getting a check for about $5 (unless there are too many of us, in which case the schools get $40 million worth of CDs that cost 1/50 of that to manufacture).
Slashdot Mirror
It's much safer, and very low maintenance (for Pioneer, it's practically zero).
Only 'practically' zero? You mean they've had to have a service call? I'd hate to be paying the repairman's travel expenses!
It is not in orbit around anything.
Technically, it's still in orbit around the center of the Milky Way, isn't it?
Actually, the most dangerous job is supposedly Alaskan crab fisherman, followed closely (and probably not in the right order) by truck drivers, loggers, miners, and firefighters.
Fucking troll. I can come up with three off the top of my head.
How about George Washington Carver, who revolutionized agriculture by improving crop yields and finding the first non-food/clothing applications for plant products, as well as introducing plastics into automobile manufacturing and starting the development of the first synthetic rubber?
Or Lewis Latimer, of Thomas Edison's research team, who literally wrote the book on electric lighting (Incandescent Electric Lighting, 1890) and invented the threaded light bulb socket?
Last, but by no means least, there's Marie Curie. If I have to explain her importance to you, you shouldn't be reading Slashdot.
Either that, or it's impossible to travel backward to before the time machine was invented. Perhaps time travel requires a transmitter and a receiver to work?
Heh, I should have said 'giver' and 'receiver' and linked to goatse.cx!
You're absolutely right; you'd be trading based on information that was not yet publicly available. Getting it by way of time travel is probably just as illegal as getting it from the board of directors a week before a press conference.
Of course, it would be really hard to start legal proceedings against someone on the basis that they used time travel to violate SEC regulations - at least until such time as time travel technology exists. So, if you're going to try this, all you have to do is go back in time far enough that the statute of limitations will have run out by the time that time travel is invented.
On the other hand, you still might be hosed if someone goes back and hands the time machine blueprints to someone else, pushing the invention of time travel backward. I'm going to stop before I give myself a headache.
Moores law doesn't just apply to silicone....
When applied to silicone, it is formulated as follows:
"The size of Britney Spears's breasts doubles every 18 years."
Oh, and you meant "whomever". Where have all the grammar nazis gone...
Are you sure? Let's simplify the sentence:
All that Covad would have to do is X.
'Is' the verb, and 'X' the object. The whole mess 'All that Covad would have to do' is the subject. 'All' is the noun, and the rest is a clause specifying all of what. In this clause, Covad is the subject. Thus, if we were replacing it with a pronoun, the correct choice would seem to be 'who', not 'whom'.
I could be missing a subtle difference, but another sentence along the same lines is "All (that) we are saying is give peace a chance." In this one, it's more obvious that 'we' functions as a subject and should not be 'us'.
Also, check your facts before posting.
Last time I tried to configure a desktop, I had to delete the monitor to get to the price they showed on the home page. I'm terribly sorry I didn't try again today before posting my observation. I apologize for any discomfort this may have caused you.
Of course, I didn't expect some sort of Spanish Inquisition.
If I understand correctly, all Covad (or whoever) would have to do is offer voice and it wouldn't be a problem. Surely they could slap together some kind of VoIP thing and offer it to their DSL customers, then BellSouth would still have to share.
I have a C3-800 in my MAME machine and it handles that task pretty well. You're not going to be happy playing UT2003 on it, though. I'd imagine it's plenty of juice for office tasks, email, web surfing, MP3 playing, and the like.
I have no idea where they get their $699 prices from... frankly I find Dell's pricing scheme very misleading.
I agree. To get the "base price", I think you have to pick the lowest-cost alternative under every single option. For desktops, that means no monitor, a piddling of memory, the crappiest keyboard/mouse available, and so forth; I'm not sure what kind of notebook config you wind up with doing that.
Of course, once the Jews got what they wanted (a country), they stopped.
Question is, what is it the muslims really want, i.e. what will it take to stop them?
Well, for one, they want the country that the Jews got. So that's going to be a bit of a problem.
I was thinking there were some Sony sets that weren't HD ready, but did have a 16:9 squeeze mode for DVDs. Am I crazy and such sets don't really exist? Or if they do, do you know if all 480 lines are resolvable on their screens?
Of course, since the whole point of these threads is discussing HDTVs, I don't guess it really matters.
As a point of reference, when I bought my 50" Toshiba 16:9 over a year ago (fall 2001), I only paid about $1700. Sears actually did a price match on the cheapest price I could find on Yahoo Shopping. When I calculated it out, I figured on needing at least a 54" 4:3 to match the image size, and couldn't find one that could be maneuvered into the den. There are two narrow doors at right angles to each other, just inches apart, which had to be negotiated. Incidentally, figuring out which TVs would fit, I was able to prove to my wife that geometry was not useless in everyday life.
The obvious caveat that nobody has pointed out to going 4:3 is that some of these sets will not "squeeze" the image (full res in the letterbox) like some of the Sony sets (including the one listed here) do.
Actually, I think I pointed that out on another post. The Sony sets that were 4:3 and would do the squeezing were both more expensive than the Toshiba I settled on, and too big to get into the room.
Good Lord. I think I paid about a quarter of that for some Acoustic Research cables that are every bit as good (if not better) as the Monster crap. Check your local Lowe's store, they probably still carry the AR stuff.
The smart buy right now, even for widescreen movie buffs, is to pick the widescreen HDTV size they like, and buy a 3:4 HDTV that can display a widescreen image the same size. The 3:4s are significantly cheaper, can display the widescreen image the same size, and finally, will not take a huge punishment on displaying older 3:4 content. The converse is not true.
Unless you're looking at RPTV's. A 55" 4:3 which can display letterbox movies the same size (and resolution; see my other post on this thread) as a 50" 16:9 is not significantly cheaper. It might even be more expensive; for instance, Sony is really proud of their 4:3 units which do 16:9 squeezing. On the other hand, the 55" 4:3 might be significantly larger, heavier, and more difficult to get through doors (this was one reason I bought a 50" 16:9).
Also, a big-screen is likely to be kept longer than a tube TV, and is more likely to still be in use as HDTV content becomes more pervasive, so the tradeoff in 4:3 picture size may be less of an issue. In my case, I have a prefectly functional older model 32" tube to watch ordinary TV; the widescreen is used almost entirely for movies and Enterprise. Now that my local CBS affiliate has their HD broadcast on line, it'll also get used this coming college football season.
To sum it up, everyone's viewing habits are different, and everyone isn't going to want the same kind of TV. Someone else isn't a moron because they choose what's right for themselves instead of what's right for you. If they choose to watch Jerry Springer, however, all bets are off!
He is talking about 16:9 movies! They are as big on a 32" 4:3 (even letterboxed) as they are on a 30" 16:9!!!!
But, if the 4:3 TV displays 16:9 by just turning off the electron guns to draw black rectangles top and bottom, the 16:9 will have better resolution. In this instance, the 4:3 which would normally display 480 lines will instead be displaying 360 lines.
The really good 4:3 TVs now typically will do 16:9 by 'squeezing' all 480 lines into the 16:9 area. This is better, but the 30" widescreen may still have higher resolution. The 4:3 TV (if it isn't HD-ready) may not have a tight enough dot pitch to really resolve all 480 lines in the 16:9 area. The widescreen, on the other hand, will be designed to resolve all 480 lines. In fact, since 99% of widescreens are HD-ready, it most likely will resolve far more.
Now, a 16:9 30" diagonal TV is approximately 26.14726575863" wide.... ...the 16:9 image is only approximately 14.70783698922" tall.
;)
Did you skip class the day 'significant digits' were explained?
DTV has 480-line modes, as well as 1080 lines.
;)
So far only the Fox network seems interested in 480p programming, the other networks are going to either 720p or 1080i.
This, of course, is not the first time that Fox has chosen to differentiate itself by showing lesser quality programming than other networks.
But, assuming your monitor reports its size correctly over DDC, your video driver can handle that, and you use mostly scalable fonts, then you can remove the override.
Even if your monitor doesn't report its size correctly, you can set
DisplaySize <width> <height>
in your XF86Config-4 file to tell XFree the real size, and then remove the -dpi 100 or whatever it is from the Xservers file.
Actually I believe it takes two. A giver, and a receiver, so to speak.
You forgot "people unwilling to accept the consequences of their own actions".
Also the next time you change jobs. Require that SS# is not used as your medical id.
I work for an HMO. We currently set up all our members with the SSN as part of the unique member number. This is going to become a huge project, as the new HIPAA legislation is going to require this to change. In fact, already one of our biggest groups (IBM) is requesting that we change all their members to randomly-assigned member numbers.
Of course, it was us I.T. folks who suggested that we start generating member numbers the last time we went through a system conversion, but management ignored us. Now it's going to be ten times harder to do. It's not always lazy programming, sometimes it's ignorant management.
Would I settle for say..a million bux and miss the opportunity to change a law that would benefit consumers everywhere?...yea, probably
Well, there's precious little chance of her getting a million bucks. Have you ever been on the receiving end of a class-action settlement? I once got a coupon for $5 off of Zip disks because of Iomega's poor handling of rebates (but by the time the coupons came around I had already ditched the drive after two replacements succumbed to click-o'death). Oh, and don't forget the price-gouging settlement against the record labels that will result in everyone getting a check for about $5 (unless there are too many of us, in which case the schools get $40 million worth of CDs that cost 1/50 of that to manufacture).