I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you're confusing two separate programs with similar names. TorrentSpy provides links to torrent files. The GP poster refered to using TOR, an online anonymity tool provided by the EFF. Despite the similar names, the two have no direct relation. You can use TOR to bypass this sort of block and search for torrents, though. Does that make any more sense?
He still has to serve his probation and pay a stiff fine, he just won't be doing jail time because of a political witchunt.
Oh, poor baby. He'll have to dip into his "rich friends fund" one more time. And Probation? Not pleasant maybe, but certainly not a big deal. And if this is a "political witch hunt", I take it you were even more pissed off about the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars spent investigating Clinton for absolutely nothing, right? You must have been marching in the streets in protest!
It's also interesting to note that in both cases the perjury conviction resulted from trying to cover up an activity that was not even criminal.
That's blatantly misleading. Clinton lied about a matter that was completely tangential to a civil lawsuit. In this case, you are correct that the underlying matter was not criminal.
In the Libby case, he lied to cover up the release of the name of a covert CIA agent. That is a crime. In fact, if the release had been done by another CIA agent, and the person receiving the information had been a foreign national, the crime would have been treason and the perpetrator could be facing the death penalty. To try to spin Libby's role as somehow not related to a criminal act just because no one was convicted (at least I assume that's your reasoning) ignores the point of why 'obstruction of justice' is a crime.
Further, it's important to understand the reason behind why each crime was committed. Clinton felt he was being asked a question that was neither relavent or appropriate. He lied to protect himself and his family from embarrassment, and his lie didn't significantly effect the outcome of the case. It's important to remember that while he was disbarred, he was also found NOT GUILTY of obstruction of justice, and even several republicans voted not guilty on that charge.
Libby, on the other hand, lied to cover up people who were releasing national secrets in order to smear a political rival. His lies specifically prevented the prosecutor from being able to bring charges against those who were directly involved in the cover up. There is strong evidence that the vice president was involved and some evidence that the president himself was involved. Beyond being felonies, these crimes are -legitimate- grounds for impeachment, and Libby's lies prevented the prosecutor from being able to prove his case.
Finally, before you make the argument, Valerie Plame was a covert operative. The head of the CIA says she was, and I tend to assume that he has more knowledge of the situation then a bunch of rightwing blowhards with a political motivation to have her not be covert.
You can claim it was the republicans but the list of dead buddies, the missing paper work, Madam Clinton's interesting network of friends and of course Clinton's perjury all made for very interesting incidents. So just how thouroughly discredited does something have to be before you will stop spewing it? The "Clinton Death List" is absolute bullshit. The lost paperwork? Bush lost possibly HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS of emails, and you bitch about a few lost pages. Hilary's friends? What about Bush's? Clinton's perjury? What about Scooter & Gonzo? And Scooter wasn't just -convicted- of perjury, but also obstruction of justice, a more serious offense. And presumably you agree with every other wingnut out there who is calling for his pardon?
The Bush administration has been involved in so many scandals that it's virtually impossible to keep track of them all. One site that tries to keep up lists 193 separate scandals. Many of them are relatively minor (political favors to candidates up for reelection, for example), but some are clear violations of the constitution that should have them all in prison (Knowingly conducting illegal wiretaps without a court order while publicly stating that no such thing was happening-- a clear violation of the fourth ammendment. Firing US Attorneys who fail to actively prosecute democrats or who refuse to -not- prosecute republicans-- the law is non-partisan, and prosecution, by law, should not consider political affiliation. Illegally outing a covert CIA agent for purely political purposes, seriously undermining the nations efforts to fight nuclear proliferation and possibly exposing other agents and their assets in the process. There are plenty more at this level). The problem is simply that with 193 seperate scandals, they all seem to blend together, which makes it easy for Bill O'Really & Rush Lumbaugh to brush them all of as democratic political dirty tricks. If you actually read that list & think about the implications of some of these scandals, you might start to question you party loyalty a bit.
Gmail doesn't support IMAP, but they've supported POP for ages. You can happily use a gmail address & never set foot on their website after you set up your account.
I think that the ads and program content are distinct - I can choose to watch "18:30 - Bugs Bunny Drives Hilariously Fast", but there is no choice offered for "20:45 - Car Ad with the Cute Driving Baby". It is shown unsolicited to the viewer. I couldn't choose not to watch the ad in the same way that I could choose not to watch Looney Toons, Dumbo or Peter Pan.
So your TV is locked on during the commercial? Odd. I can change the channel on mine. As for choosing not to watch Looney Tunes, are you going to choose not to watch any other TV as well? Face it. Sooner or later, if you let them watch TV, your children will be exposed to things that they should probably not emulate. McDonalds ads come to mind. It's both unrealistic and unreasonable to believe that just because something could be emulated it should be banned.
You've obviously never had a young child. What you and apparently thousands of others (or at least three or four) here fail to understand is that you cannot control your children.
I know an awful lot of parents of well-behaved children who don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps it is YOU who can't control your children?
Regradless, you seem to be ignoring something important here. There are MANY things in the world that children could copy & end up hurting themselves. Should society ban all of them? In the car, they are much more likely to try to emulate you driving than the TV characters, so should you be banned from driving? Bugs Bunny drives-- without a seatbelt & often well over the speed limit even. Should Looney Tunes be banned? As another poster pointed out, should Peter Pan be banned since it makes children think that they can fly? Where do we stop?
No matter how carefully you try to avoid it, sooner or later your children will be exposed to a situation where they have to use their reasoning ability to make sure that they stay safe. All you are accomplishing by banning this ad is eliminating an opportunity to explain to your children why this behavior is bad and helping them to refine their critical thinking.
But if actual parenting is to much work for you, perhaps you should just put your two year old to bed before 8:30 PM? Then the entire problem goes away and no censorship is required.
Well some don't even need to see that ad to get the carmoving. I have a little cousin who, as a 2 year old, was ablt to get himself up into the family's minivan, put the key in the ignition, and then pull the shifter down from the park -> neutral position. The van rolled down the driveway backwards and hit a parked car across the street. He probably learned to imitate his parent's starting up the van.
So I say that we should ban all parents from driving. We can't have the kids seeing something that they could imitate, now can we?
Mathematics isn't going to tell you how to interpret a natural language expression.
Strong Induction goes over my head, but I do know that it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand. The GP's statement isn't a natural language expression, it's doublespeak. The entire point of the wording is to obfuscate the actual meaning. Doublespeak is not subject to the traditional rules of logic. Logically, morally, and in every other -relevant- sense, when you lay off 510 employees, you also layoff 500 employees. But in the world of doubletalk, such rules don't apply. If it's remotely true, then it's "true enough".
The statement is an absolute, bald-faced lie, it just happens to be a true absolute, bald-faced lie.
Modern flouresents are many, many times better then the old style. As another poster noted earlier, the biggest difference is in the ballast. A magnetic ballast will flicker the light at 60hz, which is very visible-- especially if you're using a CRT set to a similar refresh rate. Those ballasts aren't sold anymore, so the refresh rate of modern flourescents is much higher. The light quality is also much better, though it very much depends on the bulbs you buy. Like most things in life, the cheaper bulbs serve their basic purpose fine, but leave a lot to be desired aesthetically. You can now buy flouresents at just about any color temperature, as well as full-spectrum bulbs, though the latter are expensive & hard to find (look in gardening stores for grow lights).
That's true, but it's also a gross oversimplification. Global warming certainly effects healthcare, but it effects realms far beyond healthcare as well.
Well, it's my opinion, and that of many others. Normally, I couldn't care less if you disagreed with me or not, but in this case you are gambling with millions of lives. Doesn't it bother you- even just a little bit- that you could be wrong? You understand that if you are wrong, you will share the responsibility for the loss of those lives, all because of your political ideology?
When gambling, the smart money plays risks vs. rewards. Would you bet $10 if you had a 1% chance of winning $1,000,000? If you say no, you're an absolute and complete idiot. The potential return FAR exceeds the potential loss.
With Global Warming, it's just the opposite. Yes, the costs are high, but the potential RISK is the possibly biggest risk that humanity has ever faced. Again, when you look at the risk/reward equation, it seems pretty obvious where the smart money goes. The only problem is that it's a long term gamble: Since the worst effects of global warming are likely 20-100 years in the future, why should a 60 year old billionaire spend HIS money to deal with it? He'll probably be dead by then. Who cares that if we don't start dealing with it now, it will be to late, that's not his problem.
What most of the "right-wingers" want is an honest discussion.
Then why do they absolutely refuse to have one? Why do they ignore that virtually every peer reviewed article on the subject says that the problem is real and caused by man? Why do they selectively take facts out of context to make papers sound critical of global warming, when they are exactly the opposite? Why is virtually every "scientist" who is disagrees with global warming directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil companies? Why is it that you can almost without fail judge someones political ideaology based solely on whether they believe that global warming is a problem? People from ALL ideaologies-- left, right, and center-- have come to realize that global warming is a problem, only some people from the far right still refuse to accept it.
All of these issues would be fine if this was an ordinary debate, but this isn't. Global warming is the biggest problem facing mankind today. Bigger then terrorism, bigger then the war in Iraq, bigger then oil prices, healthcare, whatever. All of those problems are big deals, but only global warming has a very real possibility of dramatically effecting the future of life as we know it for everyone on the planet.
There is a significant number of people in the environmental movement that do not appear to care what we actually do as long as we can transfer money from rich countries to poor countries.
That is an absurd statement. Name one policy that is -widely- pushed for on the left that does that? Remember, it's the left that opposes free-trade. It's the left that say buy locally. Both the left and the right believe in helping others out, we just go about it in different ways. The left supports taxing wealthy companies and using some small percentage of that money to pay for humanitarian programs in poor countries. The right believes in giving tax breaks to hugely profitable companies and the extremely wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class world-wide. Personally, I'd much rather have $.01 of every tax dollar go to buying a goat for some poor farmer in Africa then to pay for 5 minutes of jet fuel for someone's private jet.
I'm not a leftie nut job, and I'm not a tree-hugger. I'm extraordinarily practical. I just am sick of the right-wing rhetoric around the biggest problem facing the world today.
Ok, here's what I don't get. You right-wingers seem to have largely come around that there is a problem, just not the cause of the problem. It might be humans, but it still might be cow farts. Ok, given that we can all agree that there is a problem, shouldn't we at least make some token efforts to address the problem -regardless- of the cause? It seems to me that there is a spectrum of possible outcomes to the various scenarios that range from cutting oil company profits a bit and inconveniencing the American consumer a bit on the one end, to the worst catastrophe that mankind has ever faced, leading to possibly millions of deaths on the other. Seriously, how can you rationally be arguing against taking whatever steps are necessary when you consider the possibilities? No matter how much you may personally despise Al Gore, if there's even a 1% chance that he's right and we face the possibility of such disastors, isn't it crucial that we start to deal with those possibilities now, rather then waiting until it's too late?
Yes and no to the clutter issue. USB is hot swappable, so if you're not using a device, you can simply unplug it & put it in a drawer. For those things that must remain plugged in, you can always put them under your desk, on a shelf, etc. Personally, I'd happily trade a few extra external components to get rid of the giant, noisy box on my floor.
I can see no reason that a USB wireless connector is inherently more of a pain then any other sort. Cost is based on supply and demand, so as the demand goes up the cost will come down. Besides, my guess would be that most DTX form factor PCs will probably have built in wireless.As for performance, the only reason it should be lower on a USB wireless adapter is that they usually don't have an external antenna, but that's a design flaw of the adapter not an inherent limitation.
I don't really have anything against PCI, and you are correct that there are applications where it is a good thing. But they aren't really needed in the average desktop machine, and if you do need them, you probably don't really want a small form-factor machine. Even if DTX takes off, you will still be able to buy ATX boards, so if you really need PCI, you'll be able to get it.
BTW, I think the original article is badly worded-- the way it's worded, I suspect that they meant to say "DTX boards will include two PCI expansion slots--one of which will be a PCIe slot--along with an XpressCard slot" not "DTX boards will include two expansion slots--one of which will be a PCIe slot--along with an XpressCard slot". The language reads a bit off if you leave out the PCI qualifier and the picture you link to tends to confirm that interpretation.
There are USB data acquisition options available, and if you're creative, they are can even be a lot cheaper than the PCI versions. Check out the Wiring I/O Board which gives you 43 digital and 8 analog inputs for $70. Probably not as robust or fast as a National Instruments board, but a whole lot cheaper.
Professional Audio is also readily available via USB. Musicians almost definition travel, so many people have portable recording studios that basically consist of a laptop, a USB interface, Pro Tools and their music gear. I'm not a musician, but here's one that came up under a Google search for "USB professional audio".
Realistically, there are very few things other then video that require PCI anymore, because there are very few things that really require that much bandwidth. USB2 does just fine, and the sooner PCI they away with PCI, the happier I will be.
Also check out the Wiring Board MUCH more powerful then a Basic Stamp, programmable in either C or the C-like but somewhat simplified Wiring language, cross-platform, well supported, and Open Source. At $70 it's a bit more then a Basic Stamp, but you get a FAR more capable processor. (Disclaimer: I work for Maximum Robotics, but I would recommend the Wiring board either way. It's a great platform at a great price).
Slashdot Mirror
I may be misunderstanding you, but I think you're confusing two separate programs with similar names. TorrentSpy provides links to torrent files. The GP poster refered to using TOR, an online anonymity tool provided by the EFF. Despite the similar names, the two have no direct relation. You can use TOR to bypass this sort of block and search for torrents, though. Does that make any more sense?
Oh, poor baby. He'll have to dip into his "rich friends fund" one more time. And Probation? Not pleasant maybe, but certainly not a big deal. And if this is a "political witch hunt", I take it you were even more pissed off about the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars spent investigating Clinton for absolutely nothing, right? You must have been marching in the streets in protest!
That's blatantly misleading. Clinton lied about a matter that was completely tangential to a civil lawsuit. In this case, you are correct that the underlying matter was not criminal.
In the Libby case, he lied to cover up the release of the name of a covert CIA agent. That is a crime. In fact, if the release had been done by another CIA agent, and the person receiving the information had been a foreign national, the crime would have been treason and the perpetrator could be facing the death penalty. To try to spin Libby's role as somehow not related to a criminal act just because no one was convicted (at least I assume that's your reasoning) ignores the point of why 'obstruction of justice' is a crime.
Further, it's important to understand the reason behind why each crime was committed. Clinton felt he was being asked a question that was neither relavent or appropriate. He lied to protect himself and his family from embarrassment, and his lie didn't significantly effect the outcome of the case. It's important to remember that while he was disbarred, he was also found NOT GUILTY of obstruction of justice, and even several republicans voted not guilty on that charge.
Libby, on the other hand, lied to cover up people who were releasing national secrets in order to smear a political rival. His lies specifically prevented the prosecutor from being able to bring charges against those who were directly involved in the cover up. There is strong evidence that the vice president was involved and some evidence that the president himself was involved. Beyond being felonies, these crimes are -legitimate- grounds for impeachment, and Libby's lies prevented the prosecutor from being able to prove his case.
Finally, before you make the argument, Valerie Plame was a covert operative. The head of the CIA says she was, and I tend to assume that he has more knowledge of the situation then a bunch of rightwing blowhards with a political motivation to have her not be covert.
The Bush administration has been involved in so many scandals that it's virtually impossible to keep track of them all. One site that tries to keep up lists 193 separate scandals. Many of them are relatively minor (political favors to candidates up for reelection, for example), but some are clear violations of the constitution that should have them all in prison (Knowingly conducting illegal wiretaps without a court order while publicly stating that no such thing was happening-- a clear violation of the fourth ammendment. Firing US Attorneys who fail to actively prosecute democrats or who refuse to -not- prosecute republicans-- the law is non-partisan, and prosecution, by law, should not consider political affiliation. Illegally outing a covert CIA agent for purely political purposes, seriously undermining the nations efforts to fight nuclear proliferation and possibly exposing other agents and their assets in the process. There are plenty more at this level). The problem is simply that with 193 seperate scandals, they all seem to blend together, which makes it easy for Bill O'Really & Rush Lumbaugh to brush them all of as democratic political dirty tricks. If you actually read that list & think about the implications of some of these scandals, you might start to question you party loyalty a bit.
So Vista is a disservice pack then?
Gmail doesn't support IMAP, but they've supported POP for ages. You can happily use a gmail address & never set foot on their website after you set up your account.
So your TV is locked on during the commercial? Odd. I can change the channel on mine. As for choosing not to watch Looney Tunes, are you going to choose not to watch any other TV as well? Face it. Sooner or later, if you let them watch TV, your children will be exposed to things that they should probably not emulate. McDonalds ads come to mind. It's both unrealistic and unreasonable to believe that just because something could be emulated it should be banned.
I know an awful lot of parents of well-behaved children who don't seem to have this problem. Perhaps it is YOU who can't control your children?
Regradless, you seem to be ignoring something important here. There are MANY things in the world that children could copy & end up hurting themselves. Should society ban all of them? In the car, they are much more likely to try to emulate you driving than the TV characters, so should you be banned from driving? Bugs Bunny drives-- without a seatbelt & often well over the speed limit even. Should Looney Tunes be banned? As another poster pointed out, should Peter Pan be banned since it makes children think that they can fly? Where do we stop?
No matter how carefully you try to avoid it, sooner or later your children will be exposed to a situation where they have to use their reasoning ability to make sure that they stay safe. All you are accomplishing by banning this ad is eliminating an opportunity to explain to your children why this behavior is bad and helping them to refine their critical thinking.
But if actual parenting is to much work for you, perhaps you should just put your two year old to bed before 8:30 PM? Then the entire problem goes away and no censorship is required.
So I say that we should ban all parents from driving. We can't have the kids seeing something that they could imitate, now can we?
Strong Induction goes over my head, but I do know that it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand. The GP's statement isn't a natural language expression, it's doublespeak. The entire point of the wording is to obfuscate the actual meaning. Doublespeak is not subject to the traditional rules of logic. Logically, morally, and in every other -relevant- sense, when you lay off 510 employees, you also layoff 500 employees. But in the world of doubletalk, such rules don't apply. If it's remotely true, then it's "true enough".
The statement is an absolute, bald-faced lie, it just happens to be a true absolute, bald-faced lie.
No, you're not. You're laying off more than 500 workers. Mathematicaly, the two statements are not the same.
layoffs = 510
if (layoffs != 500) then TRUE
output: TRUE
The statement is an outright lie, but it's a true outright lie.
Modern flouresents are many, many times better then the old style. As another poster noted earlier, the biggest difference is in the ballast. A magnetic ballast will flicker the light at 60hz, which is very visible-- especially if you're using a CRT set to a similar refresh rate. Those ballasts aren't sold anymore, so the refresh rate of modern flourescents is much higher. The light quality is also much better, though it very much depends on the bulbs you buy. Like most things in life, the cheaper bulbs serve their basic purpose fine, but leave a lot to be desired aesthetically. You can now buy flouresents at just about any color temperature, as well as full-spectrum bulbs, though the latter are expensive & hard to find (look in gardening stores for grow lights).
Actually, I believe the allowed TI-89 is both newer and faster then the banned TI-92.
Actually Global Warming is a healthcare issue.
That's true, but it's also a gross oversimplification. Global warming certainly effects healthcare, but it effects realms far beyond healthcare as well.
So am I wrong that you are ideologically on the right end of the spectrum? Honestly?
Well, it's my opinion, and that of many others. Normally, I couldn't care less if you disagreed with me or not, but in this case you are gambling with millions of lives. Doesn't it bother you- even just a little bit- that you could be wrong? You understand that if you are wrong, you will share the responsibility for the loss of those lives, all because of your political ideology?
When gambling, the smart money plays risks vs. rewards. Would you bet $10 if you had a 1% chance of winning $1,000,000? If you say no, you're an absolute and complete idiot. The potential return FAR exceeds the potential loss.
With Global Warming, it's just the opposite. Yes, the costs are high, but the potential RISK is the possibly biggest risk that humanity has ever faced. Again, when you look at the risk/reward equation, it seems pretty obvious where the smart money goes. The only problem is that it's a long term gamble: Since the worst effects of global warming are likely 20-100 years in the future, why should a 60 year old billionaire spend HIS money to deal with it? He'll probably be dead by then. Who cares that if we don't start dealing with it now, it will be to late, that's not his problem.
What most of the "right-wingers" want is an honest discussion.
Then why do they absolutely refuse to have one? Why do they ignore that virtually every peer reviewed article on the subject says that the problem is real and caused by man? Why do they selectively take facts out of context to make papers sound critical of global warming, when they are exactly the opposite? Why is virtually every "scientist" who is disagrees with global warming directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil companies? Why is it that you can almost without fail judge someones political ideaology based solely on whether they believe that global warming is a problem? People from ALL ideaologies-- left, right, and center-- have come to realize that global warming is a problem, only some people from the far right still refuse to accept it.
All of these issues would be fine if this was an ordinary debate, but this isn't. Global warming is the biggest problem facing mankind today. Bigger then terrorism, bigger then the war in Iraq, bigger then oil prices, healthcare, whatever. All of those problems are big deals, but only global warming has a very real possibility of dramatically effecting the future of life as we know it for everyone on the planet.
There is a significant number of people in the environmental movement that do not appear to care what we actually do as long as we can transfer money from rich countries to poor countries.
That is an absurd statement. Name one policy that is -widely- pushed for on the left that does that? Remember, it's the left that opposes free-trade. It's the left that say buy locally. Both the left and the right believe in helping others out, we just go about it in different ways. The left supports taxing wealthy companies and using some small percentage of that money to pay for humanitarian programs in poor countries. The right believes in giving tax breaks to hugely profitable companies and the extremely wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class world-wide. Personally, I'd much rather have $.01 of every tax dollar go to buying a goat for some poor farmer in Africa then to pay for 5 minutes of jet fuel for someone's private jet.
I'm not a leftie nut job, and I'm not a tree-hugger. I'm extraordinarily practical. I just am sick of the right-wing rhetoric around the biggest problem facing the world today.
Ok, here's what I don't get. You right-wingers seem to have largely come around that there is a problem, just not the cause of the problem. It might be humans, but it still might be cow farts. Ok, given that we can all agree that there is a problem, shouldn't we at least make some token efforts to address the problem -regardless- of the cause? It seems to me that there is a spectrum of possible outcomes to the various scenarios that range from cutting oil company profits a bit and inconveniencing the American consumer a bit on the one end, to the worst catastrophe that mankind has ever faced, leading to possibly millions of deaths on the other. Seriously, how can you rationally be arguing against taking whatever steps are necessary when you consider the possibilities? No matter how much you may personally despise Al Gore, if there's even a 1% chance that he's right and we face the possibility of such disastors, isn't it crucial that we start to deal with those possibilities now, rather then waiting until it's too late?
Yes and no to the clutter issue. USB is hot swappable, so if you're not using a device, you can simply unplug it & put it in a drawer. For those things that must remain plugged in, you can always put them under your desk, on a shelf, etc. Personally, I'd happily trade a few extra external components to get rid of the giant, noisy box on my floor.
I can see no reason that a USB wireless connector is inherently more of a pain then any other sort. Cost is based on supply and demand, so as the demand goes up the cost will come down. Besides, my guess would be that most DTX form factor PCs will probably have built in wireless.As for performance, the only reason it should be lower on a USB wireless adapter is that they usually don't have an external antenna, but that's a design flaw of the adapter not an inherent limitation.
I don't really have anything against PCI, and you are correct that there are applications where it is a good thing. But they aren't really needed in the average desktop machine, and if you do need them, you probably don't really want a small form-factor machine. Even if DTX takes off, you will still be able to buy ATX boards, so if you really need PCI, you'll be able to get it.
BTW, I think the original article is badly worded-- the way it's worded, I suspect that they meant to say "DTX boards will include two PCI expansion slots--one of which will be a PCIe slot--along with an XpressCard slot" not "DTX boards will include two expansion slots--one of which will be a PCIe slot--along with an XpressCard slot". The language reads a bit off if you leave out the PCI qualifier and the picture you link to tends to confirm that interpretation.
There are USB data acquisition options available, and if you're creative, they are can even be a lot cheaper than the PCI versions. Check out the Wiring I/O Board which gives you 43 digital and 8 analog inputs for $70. Probably not as robust or fast as a National Instruments board, but a whole lot cheaper.
Professional Audio is also readily available via USB. Musicians almost definition travel, so many people have portable recording studios that basically consist of a laptop, a USB interface, Pro Tools and their music gear. I'm not a musician, but here's one that came up under a Google search for "USB professional audio".
Realistically, there are very few things other then video that require PCI anymore, because there are very few things that really require that much bandwidth. USB2 does just fine, and the sooner PCI they away with PCI, the happier I will be.
Thanks for that link. It would be an excellent platform for a car mp3 player, which has been on my project list for quite some time now.
iPwn.
Also check out the Wiring Board MUCH more powerful then a Basic Stamp, programmable in either C or the C-like but somewhat simplified Wiring language, cross-platform, well supported, and Open Source. At $70 it's a bit more then a Basic Stamp, but you get a FAR more capable processor. (Disclaimer: I work for Maximum Robotics, but I would recommend the Wiring board either way. It's a great platform at a great price).