I know what a meter is and how long it is, but still convert it to feet before I can visulize it. i.e. a centimeter is about 1/3 of an inch, and a meter is a bit longer than a yard.
A centimetre is about 1/3 of an inch? Since when?
By any chance do you measure your penis in inches and then boast about its length in cm?
(6 in. = 15.24 cm, not ~18 cm as you seem to think.)
The Mirage IIIEA and Dagger A aircraft mentioned in your link are supersonic. The Dagger is a fighter-bomber, while Mirage IIIEA is a fighter-interceptor. Both have a top speed of around 1,460 mph, (specs)well in excess of the speed of sound.
In the link, thirteen of these aircraft are listed as lost to enemy fire. Of course, not all of these were shot down by Harriers, but it's clear that there were some engagements between these supersonic fighters and the subsonic RAF and RN Harriers. During these engagements, not a single Harrier was shot down by the Argentine forces but a significant number of aircraft were lost to them.
One likely reason the British Harriers had a higher accident rate is that they fly more low-altitude missions, leaving less margin of error. Another explanation may be that the current British Harriers use older, less reliable engines.
At the same time, maintenance mistakes account for far fewer accidents in England. Rolls Royce, the British firm that makes the Harrier?s Pegasus engine, overhauls the Royal Air Force engines. The Marines handle this task themselves with the help of civilian mechanics. Also, Royal Air Force mechanics tend to be much more seasoned than the Marines and civilians who work on U.S. Harriers. Some British air force maintainers have 22 years of experience; some Marine maintainers are not yet 22 years old.
So, the British pilots tend to fly more dangerous missions, whether in peace time or during war. The RAF treat the Harrier as a multifunction aircraft, and use it for missions that the US Marines would deem unsuitable for it. For example, in the Balkans, RAF Harriers have been used for precision bombing missions, whereas similar sorties flown by US forces tend to be with newer, faster and more capable aircraft, such as the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-117A, etc.
A like-for-like comparision of the maintenance records of the RAF/RN Harriers and the US Marine Corps Harriers is possible but, before you compare the records of the aircraft in the air, you first have to take into account their different usage profiles.
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Also from the article:
In Britain, where maintenance-related mistakes are relatively rare, some Harrier mechanics have worked on the plane for more years than their American counterparts have been alive.
Some Marine leaders acknowledge that the Harrier, quite simply, is often too complex for the recent high school graduates who typically maintain it.
"We had regular guys fixing them, not engineers," said retired Lt. Gen. Charles H. Pitman, a former chief of Marine aviation," and so we found that some of the problems were caused by us doing something we shouldn't have done."
If "maintenance-related mistakes are relatively rare" in Britain and they are common in the US doesn't that tell you something? Everything in the article points to the US Marines Harriers as being underfunded, poorly maintained and flown by under-qualified pilots. No disrespect to the US Marines concerned, but this isn't the way to maintain a front-line aircraft.
The difference between the British and American philosophies to the Harrier are startling. The British devote proper resources to it, only let the best of the best fly it and hence have a much better safety record with the aircraft. The Americans, who regard supersonic aircraft as more prestigious, devote fewer resources to it and put less experienced pilots into Harrier cockpits. If they took the British approach then their safety record would be much better.
Lastly, the reason why the RAF is part of the JSF programme isn't because the Harrier is hazardous, it's because the Harrier has been in service for over three decades and is way past its originally envisaged service life - nothing extraordinary about that at all.
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A few quotes pulled from the LA Times article that you linked to:
"Military officials knew about defects in the flaps and ejection system for years before fixing them, while planes crashed and pilots died."
Well, that's a maintennace issue, isn't it? If you know something needs fixing and you deliberately ignore it bad things will happen. That's true whether it's a Harrier, a car tyre or unpatched web server.
Proficiency in the Harrier cockpit requires, at minimum, 15 to 20 hours in the air each month, according to the Marines... As recently as 2000, they averaged 8.2 flight hours a month; that has since increased to 13 hours.
So, you put unexperienced pilots into an aircraft that is nothing like anything they've ever flown before and you wonder why they safety record suffers? Would you put a novice car driver into seat of an Indy car for Indy car? Would you allow an neophyte rider to get on a top-of-range Harley first time around?
The Marines also scrimp on spare parts, causing mechanics to cannibalize components from one plane to keep others in the air. As a result, planes often fly with known ailments, or "gripes," that are not considered serious enough to warrant immediate repair.
If you put together a PC cobbled together with parts that had failed intermittently would you really be that surprised if the thing didn't run for years without a single hitch? Which do you think would last longer, that machine or one that's brand new?
These things are avoidable, just like the Columbia shuttle disaster, and it's only sheer stupidity that puts an untrained pilot up in an aircraft with faulty flaps and spare parts that have taken their fair share of wear and tear.
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 4, Informative
VTOL planes always seem to be plenty risky - the Harriers are also quite widely known for killing their pilots, aren't they?
Err, no. Harriers have an excellent safety record and an even better combat one. During the Falklands War, British pilots of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy lost none of their Harriers to enemy aircraft (one was shot down by ground-based anti-aircraft fire) whilst managing to shoot down twenty Argentine aircraft - this despite the fact that the subsonic Harriers were matched up against supersonic opponents.
VIFFing (vectoring in forward flight), a strategy limited to the Harrier and other VTOL aircraft capable of redirecting their thrust mid-flight, is a favourite dog fight strategy of Harrier pilots. One minute you're on his tail, lining him up for a shot, then next minute the Harrier's no longer in front of you because its pilot has "jumped" vertically. And, by the time you've worked it all out, he's dropped back down behind you and is about to missile lock your aircraft.
Next time, do your research.
Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Once these things really hit "real world" usage, the V-22 Osprey really HAS no reason to exist (and all the army personnel at risk of dying in one should rejoice)."
You're assuming that a military ornithopter transport would be safer than the Osprey. A bit of a leap of faith seeing as it hasn't even got past the university project stage.
...you have to remember who their target audience is for this venture.
The target audience certainly isn't the more technical or internet-savvy PC or Mac user (the disc is dual format), it's the PC or Mac user who hasn't used their machine for much more than word processing, light browsing and email.
The kind of people who are wary of buying from websites like CD-Wow.com, Play.com, etc who offer great prices simply because they don't recognise the brands that they're dealing with are far more likely to buy something from a site backed by a brand (The Sunday Times) that they are familiar and comfortable with, respect and with which they possibly have a life-long affinity. In that respect, the CD serves its purpose.
Don't for a second be under any illusion that the CD is aimed at the typical Slashdot reader. A newspaper unlike a website can't differentiate between a nethead or a newbie, and as there are more people at the newbie end of the scale then the nethead one it is natural for The Sunday Times to pitch its offering at the less technical end of the PC and Mac market.
Remember, this isn't an addition to attract people who know one end of a PCI card from the other, it's an addition to attract floating readers to this particular broadsheet newspaper as opposed to the ones next to it on the shelves.
Yea, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe we in the U.S. should set up a nice firewall to keep the damn brits out of our country's data too. Better yet, go to the EU and file a claim against the UK using the Internet, after all, WE paid to develope it.
That's what the world needs, lots of little I want to share your IP but keep mine additudes all over the Internet. Perhaps the Brits can start a new Internet Philosphy: "Your Information wants to be free."
1. British TV audiences pay for the BBC year on year. The US taxpayer isn't still paying for the development of the internet.
ARPANET was developed three decades ago and, although the internet as we know it is built upon its foundations, little of what we call the internet today was once part of ARPANET. In infrastructure terms, we're several generations beyond those earlier networks.
Making this library available online won't be totally free. Storage, bandwidth, support, etc all has a real-world cost. Doesn't it make sense to you that the people who pay for the content should have access to it and those that don't do not?
2. The world wide web was developed, and made free for everyone to use, by an Englishman, Tim Berners-Lee.
So today's internet is truly an international development.
Berners-Lee developed the WWW while working at CERN, a pan-European research facility and never put a price tag or any restrictions on his work. However, American academics that have made similar technological developments have been less eager to share their work freely.
Want proof? Look at Cisco, UNIX, Netscape, etc. So, when it comes to sharing IP, the British are demonstratably more generous than their American cousins.
3. The BBC has cross-licensing agreements with other broadcasters worldwide, and these agreements normally include territorial "ownership" of programming, broadcasting, rebroadcasting and licensing rights.
The BBC owns the rights to these works in the UK, it might not hold the rights to these works worldwide. An example of this is Band Of Brothers, which the BBC co-produced with HBO. HBO owns the exclusive rights in the US, the BBC owns the exclusive rights in the UK and (presumably) they share the other markets.
4. The BBC already shares more content than ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and any other US news network or broadcaster that you care to mention.
As well as English and Welsh, the BBC's flagship news website, is available in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and Russian. It has region specific news, and the unparalleled World Service, which provides news in 43 languages.
Care to mention any other broadcaster anywhere in the world that offers so much to those beyond its borders?
5. "Develope" isn't a word. "Develop", however, is.
I'm sorry but I couldn't resist. I could perhaps be facetious and say that someone who can't spell simple words without feeling the need to add an "e" on the end of them (are you by any chance related to Dan Quayle?) really shouldn't be commenting on intellectual property, but that would be less than charitable of me. Let's just say that I think you need better access to a decent education than better access to episodes of Jackanory or Brideshead Revisited.
If a Palm or Pocket PC device qualifies even though it's larger than credit-card sized, then so does the human brain and we're all guilty of patent violation.
After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user to "securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The USPTO is a joke.
Hey, it's not my fault that you can't appreciate sarcasm.
You're not the same Timbo of "Timbo's goals" fame are you? If so, any predictions for the season? I can't believe we didn't try to get Mendieta if he was available for free.
Hmmm, perhaps we should send this story to everyone we know, everyone on usenet and everyone listed in all those online directories? I'm sure they'll all appreciate an article that'll help them cut down on the amount of spam that they receive.
Yeah, I'll think I'll be a good samaritan and do that ASAP. Now, where's that open relay...
When I visited Florida as a teenager fourteen years ago, I saw one of USA Today's cover polls that asked five year-olds who they'd like to have as their president. Top of the poll (with over 50 percent of the votes, if I remember correctly) was Big Bird from Sesame Street. Then came another bunch of fictional figures with Bill Cosby being the highest ranked human being (with around 10 percent, again IIRC).
Now, fourteen years on, these kids are just becoming elligible to vote for real. I'd think that either of those two choices, Big Bird or Bill Cosby, would make great candidates. For one thing, they have tangible diplomatic skills that have been tested over the years by the most feisty allies (Mr. Snuf-a-lufagus, Dr. Huxtable's wife), adversaries (Oscar the Grouch, the younger Huxtable kids) and special interest groups (Count Dracula, the older Huxtable kids).
Personally, my vote would go to Big Bird. I'd like to see a cabinet with real weight and authority and I think that his staff, including Bert and Ernie, would bring a certain gravitas to the West Wing that's been missing for the last few decades.
So, please, if we're going to see a Slashdot poll, can we add these two candidates for the benefit of that generation? Oh, and perhaps Britney Spears too.
Eyes have the potential problem of a thief scanning your house to see what you have inside. Slashdotters unite! We must band together to ban optic nerves!
Hah, another example of windows' lack of security - you don't even need any technical knowledge or root level priviledges to see everything that's going on inside!
Fortunately, there's a patch for this OpenEyes vulnerability. It's called Curtains and Blinds 1.0.
But doesn't this imply owners of the legal software are also being spied upon?
OK, I'll take serious stick for saying this but here goes (and there goes my karma).
Sometimes, people observe/stake out/spy on others and their suspicions/paranoia prove to unfounded and sometimes they prove to be well-placed. Not everyone who's under police surveilance, has a background check run on them or gets asked for additional ID verification when using a credit card is going to be guilty of wrong-doing, but does that mean the cops, your kids' schools or Amex should never be allowed to verify basic details?
If the software license made it clear up front that the package could and would periodically check that its use was within the boundaries set by the license (eg, full licensing) then I don't see anything wrong with a publisher checking up on its users in this way. After all, permission had been given, just as it had been given (implicitly or otherwise) in the real world examples I gave above.
One thing you need to ask yourself before you potentially start bashing this company's spyware (or whatever you want to call it): am I in violation of a software license or any laws? Make damn sure that their aren't any illegal copies of the software floating around your organisation before kicking up a major fuss otherwise this could really backfire for you.
even if the ati card WAS faster, hell will freeze over before i ever buy another card from them!
they have crappy support, crappy hardware (as in reliability) and crappy drivers. i've had so many ATI cards die on me it's not even funny.
on the other hand i've had only one nvidia card die, due to rough handling and no fan (it came loose somehow and i didn't notice it, probably in transport)
Man, I've handled well over 100 different models from at least a dozen manufacturers over at least as many years and I've never had a card die on me. If all these cards are dying on you then there's got to be a reason - just what the hell are you using them for and in what environment? Unless you're a big time overclocker,video cards are pretty damn sturdy and the odds are that a card will outlast your use for it, so perhaps you need to re-examine just how you handle your cards and how much abuse that they're taking?
Having one card fail on you is unfortunate. Two, three or more smacks of carelessness.
(I'm not looking to troll here. I'm just comparing my extensive experience with yours.)
Neither runs faster than the Orchid Farenheit 180.
I used Lotus 123 and WordPerfect 5.1 as the test applications.
Aah, but do you have the ISA, EISA or MCA version of the card? That EISA version really kicks ass, especially on a system running MS-DOS 5.0 and tweaked with 386MAX.
Did anyone actually purchase ME to find out what it looked like?
From what I heard, ME was a buggy mess that was shipped because they want to have something for the consumers to upgrade to every other year. I have read that ME ranks up there as one of m$' bigger mistakes, right up there with micro$oft bob.
ME, ME, ME, ME, ME - that's all you want to talk about, isn't it?
TALK TO A LAWYER... Someone needs to make a song about this.
Substitute the word lawyer for Malkovich and just watch the scene in Being John Malkovich where he himself goes down the shaft and experiences what it's like to be John Malkovich.
As mentioned in this BBC News article, the late Barry Sheene, a Former world motorcycling champion who underwent major surgery several times in his career (he had metal plates in both knees, 28 screws in his legs and a bolt in his left wrist) moved to Australia specifically because the weather there was easier on his body.
The exact quote is as follows:
Sheene moved to the warmer climes of Australia in the early 1990s to ease the pain caused by arthritis from numerous broken bones suffered in crashes.
This isn't an isolated mention either - it is very common for people who've had metal plates surgically inserted to feel discomfort in the cold.
Coming back to your case though, it is extremely common for migraine sufferers to suffer more attacks in summer than in winter. Certainly every sufferer that I know of agrees with that statement and various articles in respected medical journals (such as The Lancet) say the same thing.
What the article was talking about was the difference between a NEO (Near Earth Object), a Kuiper belt object (really far away), etc. Personally I dont see what all the fuss is about.:)
If a NEO's close to the Earth then it's clearly within our solar system. And if this NEO's within the system then how can it destroy the system from without?
Man, I'm getting confused here waiting for this Revolutions trailer to download. My astronomy and sci-fi is becoming confusd - there must be a glitch in the system messing with my synaptic pathways. Yeah, that's it. That or I'm getting damn desperate waiting for the third movie to come out.
(Oh, and remember, it's Thursday and it's The Matrix so it's OK not to hate the MPAA in this instance. The Slashdot Geek FAQ says so.)
Slashdot Mirror
I know what a meter is and how long it is, but still convert it to feet before I can visulize it. i.e. a centimeter is about 1/3 of an inch, and a meter is a bit longer than a yard.
A centimetre is about 1/3 of an inch? Since when?
By any chance do you measure your penis in inches and then boast about its length in cm?
(6 in. = 15.24 cm, not ~18 cm as you seem to think.)
The Mirage IIIEA and Dagger A aircraft mentioned in your link are supersonic. The Dagger is a fighter-bomber, while Mirage IIIEA is a fighter-interceptor. Both have a top speed of around 1,460 mph, (specs)well in excess of the speed of sound.
In the link, thirteen of these aircraft are listed as lost to enemy fire. Of course, not all of these were shot down by Harriers, but it's clear that there were some engagements between these supersonic fighters and the subsonic RAF and RN Harriers. During these engagements, not a single Harrier was shot down by the Argentine forces but a significant number of aircraft were lost to them.
Here's an excerpt from that link:
One likely reason the British Harriers had a higher accident rate is that they fly more low-altitude missions, leaving less margin of error. Another explanation may be that the current British Harriers use older, less reliable engines.
At the same time, maintenance mistakes account for far fewer accidents in England. Rolls Royce, the British firm that makes the Harrier?s Pegasus engine, overhauls the Royal Air Force engines. The Marines handle this task themselves with the help of civilian mechanics. Also, Royal Air Force mechanics tend to be much more seasoned than the Marines and civilians who work on U.S. Harriers. Some British air force maintainers have 22 years of experience; some Marine maintainers are not yet 22 years old.
So, the British pilots tend to fly more dangerous missions, whether in peace time or during war. The RAF treat the Harrier as a multifunction aircraft, and use it for missions that the US Marines would deem unsuitable for it. For example, in the Balkans, RAF Harriers have been used for precision bombing missions, whereas similar sorties flown by US forces tend to be with newer, faster and more capable aircraft, such as the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-117A, etc.
A like-for-like comparision of the maintenance records of the RAF/RN Harriers and the US Marine Corps Harriers is possible but, before you compare the records of the aircraft in the air, you first have to take into account their different usage profiles.
Also from the article:
In Britain, where maintenance-related mistakes are relatively rare, some Harrier mechanics have worked on the plane for more years than their American counterparts have been alive.
Some Marine leaders acknowledge that the Harrier, quite simply, is often too complex for the recent high school graduates who typically maintain it.
"We had regular guys fixing them, not engineers," said retired Lt. Gen. Charles H. Pitman, a former chief of Marine aviation," and so we found that some of the problems were caused by us doing something we shouldn't have done."
If "maintenance-related mistakes are relatively rare" in Britain and they are common in the US doesn't that tell you something? Everything in the article points to the US Marines Harriers as being underfunded, poorly maintained and flown by under-qualified pilots. No disrespect to the US Marines concerned, but this isn't the way to maintain a front-line aircraft.
The difference between the British and American philosophies to the Harrier are startling. The British devote proper resources to it, only let the best of the best fly it and hence have a much better safety record with the aircraft. The Americans, who regard supersonic aircraft as more prestigious, devote fewer resources to it and put less experienced pilots into Harrier cockpits. If they took the British approach then their safety record would be much better.
Lastly, the reason why the RAF is part of the JSF programme isn't because the Harrier is hazardous, it's because the Harrier has been in service for over three decades and is way past its originally envisaged service life - nothing extraordinary about that at all.
A few quotes pulled from the LA Times article that you linked to:
"Military officials knew about defects in the flaps and ejection system for years before fixing them, while planes crashed and pilots died."
Well, that's a maintennace issue, isn't it? If you know something needs fixing and you deliberately ignore it bad things will happen. That's true whether it's a Harrier, a car tyre or unpatched web server.
Proficiency in the Harrier cockpit requires, at minimum, 15 to 20 hours in the air each month, according to the Marines... As recently as 2000, they averaged 8.2 flight hours a month; that has since increased to 13 hours.
So, you put unexperienced pilots into an aircraft that is nothing like anything they've ever flown before and you wonder why they safety record suffers? Would you put a novice car driver into seat of an Indy car for Indy car? Would you allow an neophyte rider to get on a top-of-range Harley first time around?
The Marines also scrimp on spare parts, causing mechanics to cannibalize components from one plane to keep others in the air. As a result, planes often fly with known ailments, or "gripes," that are not considered serious enough to warrant immediate repair.
If you put together a PC cobbled together with parts that had failed intermittently would you really be that surprised if the thing didn't run for years without a single hitch? Which do you think would last longer, that machine or one that's brand new?
These things are avoidable, just like the Columbia shuttle disaster, and it's only sheer stupidity that puts an untrained pilot up in an aircraft with faulty flaps and spare parts that have taken their fair share of wear and tear.
VTOL planes always seem to be plenty risky - the Harriers are also quite widely known for killing their pilots, aren't they?
Err, no. Harriers have an excellent safety record and an even better combat one. During the Falklands War, British pilots of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy lost none of their Harriers to enemy aircraft (one was shot down by ground-based anti-aircraft fire) whilst managing to shoot down twenty Argentine aircraft - this despite the fact that the subsonic Harriers were matched up against supersonic opponents.
VIFFing (vectoring in forward flight), a strategy limited to the Harrier and other VTOL aircraft capable of redirecting their thrust mid-flight, is a favourite dog fight strategy of Harrier pilots. One minute you're on his tail, lining him up for a shot, then next minute the Harrier's no longer in front of you because its pilot has "jumped" vertically. And, by the time you've worked it all out, he's dropped back down behind you and is about to missile lock your aircraft.
Next time, do your research.
Once these things really hit "real world" usage, the V-22 Osprey really HAS no reason to exist (and all the army personnel at risk of dying in one should rejoice)."
You're assuming that a military ornithopter transport would be safer than the Osprey. A bit of a leap of faith seeing as it hasn't even got past the university project stage.
...you have to remember who their target audience is for this venture.
The target audience certainly isn't the more technical or internet-savvy PC or Mac user (the disc is dual format), it's the PC or Mac user who hasn't used their machine for much more than word processing, light browsing and email.
The kind of people who are wary of buying from websites like CD-Wow.com, Play.com, etc who offer great prices simply because they don't recognise the brands that they're dealing with are far more likely to buy something from a site backed by a brand (The Sunday Times) that they are familiar and comfortable with, respect and with which they possibly have a life-long affinity. In that respect, the CD serves its purpose.
Don't for a second be under any illusion that the CD is aimed at the typical Slashdot reader. A newspaper unlike a website can't differentiate between a nethead or a newbie, and as there are more people at the newbie end of the scale then the nethead one it is natural for The Sunday Times to pitch its offering at the less technical end of the PC and Mac market.
Remember, this isn't an addition to attract people who know one end of a PCI card from the other, it's an addition to attract floating readers to this particular broadsheet newspaper as opposed to the ones next to it on the shelves.
Yea, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe we in the U.S. should set up a nice firewall to keep the damn brits out of our country's data too. Better yet, go to the EU and file a claim against the UK using the Internet, after all, WE paid to develope it.
That's what the world needs, lots of little I want to share your IP but keep mine additudes all over the Internet. Perhaps the Brits can start a new Internet Philosphy: "Your Information wants to be free."
1. British TV audiences pay for the BBC year on year. The US taxpayer isn't still paying for the development of the internet.
ARPANET was developed three decades ago and, although the internet as we know it is built upon its foundations, little of what we call the internet today was once part of ARPANET. In infrastructure terms, we're several generations beyond those earlier networks.
Making this library available online won't be totally free. Storage, bandwidth, support, etc all has a real-world cost. Doesn't it make sense to you that the people who pay for the content should have access to it and those that don't do not?
2. The world wide web was developed, and made free for everyone to use, by an Englishman, Tim Berners-Lee.
So today's internet is truly an international development.
Berners-Lee developed the WWW while working at CERN, a pan-European research facility and never put a price tag or any restrictions on his work. However, American academics that have made similar technological developments have been less eager to share their work freely.
Want proof? Look at Cisco, UNIX, Netscape, etc. So, when it comes to sharing IP, the British are demonstratably more generous than their American cousins.
3. The BBC has cross-licensing agreements with other broadcasters worldwide, and these agreements normally include territorial "ownership" of programming, broadcasting, rebroadcasting and licensing rights.
The BBC owns the rights to these works in the UK, it might not hold the rights to these works worldwide. An example of this is Band Of Brothers, which the BBC co-produced with HBO. HBO owns the exclusive rights in the US, the BBC owns the exclusive rights in the UK and (presumably) they share the other markets.
4. The BBC already shares more content than ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and any other US news network or broadcaster that you care to mention.
As well as English and Welsh, the BBC's flagship news website, is available in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and Russian. It has region specific news, and the unparalleled World Service, which provides news in 43 languages.
Care to mention any other broadcaster anywhere in the world that offers so much to those beyond its borders?
5. "Develope" isn't a word. "Develop", however, is.
I'm sorry but I couldn't resist. I could perhaps be facetious and say that someone who can't spell simple words without feeling the need to add an "e" on the end of them (are you by any chance related to Dan Quayle?) really shouldn't be commenting on intellectual property, but that would be less than charitable of me. Let's just say that I think you need better access to a decent education than better access to episodes of Jackanory or Brideshead Revisited.
If a Palm or Pocket PC device qualifies even though it's larger than credit-card sized, then so does the human brain and we're all guilty of patent violation.
After all, the human brain is a "computer" that allows its user to "securely store a multitude of account numbers, PIN codes, access information and other data from multiple credit cards, check cards, identification cards and similar personal documents".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The USPTO is a joke.
Hey, it's not my fault that you can't appreciate sarcasm.
You're not the same Timbo of "Timbo's goals" fame are you? If so, any predictions for the season? I can't believe we didn't try to get Mendieta if he was available for free.
Hmmm, perhaps we should send this story to everyone we know, everyone on usenet and everyone listed in all those online directories? I'm sure they'll all appreciate an article that'll help them cut down on the amount of spam that they receive.
Yeah, I'll think I'll be a good samaritan and do that ASAP. Now, where's that open relay...
When I visited Florida as a teenager fourteen years ago, I saw one of USA Today's cover polls that asked five year-olds who they'd like to have as their president. Top of the poll (with over 50 percent of the votes, if I remember correctly) was Big Bird from Sesame Street. Then came another bunch of fictional figures with Bill Cosby being the highest ranked human being (with around 10 percent, again IIRC).
Now, fourteen years on, these kids are just becoming elligible to vote for real. I'd think that either of those two choices, Big Bird or Bill Cosby, would make great candidates. For one thing, they have tangible diplomatic skills that have been tested over the years by the most feisty allies (Mr. Snuf-a-lufagus, Dr. Huxtable's wife), adversaries (Oscar the Grouch, the younger Huxtable kids) and special interest groups (Count Dracula, the older Huxtable kids).
Personally, my vote would go to Big Bird. I'd like to see a cabinet with real weight and authority and I think that his staff, including Bert and Ernie, would bring a certain gravitas to the West Wing that's been missing for the last few decades.
So, please, if we're going to see a Slashdot poll, can we add these two candidates for the benefit of that generation? Oh, and perhaps Britney Spears too.
Eyes have the potential problem of a thief scanning your house to see what you have inside. Slashdotters unite! We must band together to ban optic nerves!
Hah, another example of windows' lack of security - you don't even need any technical knowledge or root level priviledges to see everything that's going on inside!
Fortunately, there's a patch for this OpenEyes vulnerability. It's called Curtains and Blinds 1.0.
> You use the illegal software
But doesn't this imply owners of the legal software are also being spied upon?
OK, I'll take serious stick for saying this but here goes (and there goes my karma).
Sometimes, people observe/stake out/spy on others and their suspicions/paranoia prove to unfounded and sometimes they prove to be well-placed. Not everyone who's under police surveilance, has a background check run on them or gets asked for additional ID verification when using a credit card is going to be guilty of wrong-doing, but does that mean the cops, your kids' schools or Amex should never be allowed to verify basic details?
If the software license made it clear up front that the package could and would periodically check that its use was within the boundaries set by the license (eg, full licensing) then I don't see anything wrong with a publisher checking up on its users in this way. After all, permission had been given, just as it had been given (implicitly or otherwise) in the real world examples I gave above.
One thing you need to ask yourself before you potentially start bashing this company's spyware (or whatever you want to call it): am I in violation of a software license or any laws? Make damn sure that their aren't any illegal copies of the software floating around your organisation before kicking up a major fuss otherwise this could really backfire for you.
even if the ati card WAS faster, hell will freeze over before i ever buy another card from them!
they have crappy support, crappy hardware (as in reliability) and crappy drivers. i've had so many ATI cards die on me it's not even funny.
on the other hand i've had only one nvidia card die, due to rough handling and no fan (it came loose somehow and i didn't notice it, probably in transport)
Man, I've handled well over 100 different models from at least a dozen manufacturers over at least as many years and I've never had a card die on me. If all these cards are dying on you then there's got to be a reason - just what the hell are you using them for and in what environment? Unless you're a big time overclocker,video cards are pretty damn sturdy and the odds are that a card will outlast your use for it, so perhaps you need to re-examine just how you handle your cards and how much abuse that they're taking?
Having one card fail on you is unfortunate. Two, three or more smacks of carelessness.
(I'm not looking to troll here. I'm just comparing my extensive experience with yours.)
Neither runs faster than the Orchid Farenheit 180.
I used Lotus 123 and WordPerfect 5.1 as the test applications.
Aah, but do you have the ISA, EISA or MCA version of the card? That EISA version really kicks ass, especially on a system running MS-DOS 5.0 and tweaked with 386MAX.
Did anyone actually purchase ME to find out what it looked like?
From what I heard, ME was a buggy mess that was shipped because they want to have something for the consumers to upgrade to every other year. I have read that ME ranks up there as one of m$' bigger mistakes, right up there with micro$oft bob.
ME, ME, ME, ME, ME - that's all you want to talk about, isn't it?
TALK TO A LAWYER... Someone needs to make a song about this.
Substitute the word lawyer for Malkovich and just watch the scene in Being John Malkovich where he himself goes down the shaft and experiences what it's like to be John Malkovich.
Very entertaining film.
As mentioned in this BBC News article, the late Barry Sheene, a Former world motorcycling champion who underwent major surgery several times in his career (he had metal plates in both knees, 28 screws in his legs and a bolt in his left wrist) moved to Australia specifically because the weather there was easier on his body.
The exact quote is as follows:
Sheene moved to the warmer climes of Australia in the early 1990s to ease the pain caused by arthritis from numerous broken bones suffered in crashes.
This isn't an isolated mention either - it is very common for people who've had metal plates surgically inserted to feel discomfort in the cold.
Coming back to your case though, it is extremely common for migraine sufferers to suffer more attacks in summer than in winter. Certainly every sufferer that I know of agrees with that statement and various articles in respected medical journals (such as The Lancet) say the same thing.
Show me proof of ownership for your toilet. Bet you can't!
Will a hard dump of its contents do?
What the article was talking about was the difference between a NEO (Near Earth Object), a Kuiper belt object (really far away), etc. Personally I dont see what all the fuss is about. :)
If a NEO's close to the Earth then it's clearly within our solar system. And if this NEO's within the system then how can it destroy the system from without?
Man, I'm getting confused here waiting for this Revolutions trailer to download. My astronomy and sci-fi is becoming confusd - there must be a glitch in the system messing with my synaptic pathways. Yeah, that's it. That or I'm getting damn desperate waiting for the third movie to come out.
(Oh, and remember, it's Thursday and it's The Matrix so it's OK not to hate the MPAA in this instance. The Slashdot Geek FAQ says so.)
It ain't the pollution boy, it's the damn terrorists!
Who cares about the Kyoto agreement when there are countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to invade?
That's how long it took me when I ported my pay-as-you-go (ie, no fixed monthly fee) phone from one provider to another last year.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that the carriers are using this as an excuse to gouge their customers!
Whatever next? Companies that exploit their workers? Accountants that fudge the numbers? Politicians that lie?