It's the fan in my pc that's loud not the processor. even small fans make noise.
Uhh, yeah. And the reason you NEED that big fan is because of all the heat that CPU is generating. Smaller fans = less noise.
I still have a couple Pentium I with MMX running and without a hitch. How much longer are you talking about?
And what kind of temps do they run at? Much cooler than a 3.2Ghz Prescott, I can promise you.
Not to sound like an Apple zealot (I'm far from it), but it seems like you've bought into the "Mhz myth" hook, line and sinker. Lower power and lower speeds does not need to equal lower performance.
Who says it's in our best interests to allow HIM to have that much power? I can tell you for a fact that no one asked me first, how about you? The point is, it's NOT our nor the governments place to "appropriate" BG's wealth so that his kin can't use it to exert undue influence over whatever. In all honesty I'm a moderate, getting moreso everyday in fact. But for any outside entity to tell someone what they can and can't bequeath to their heirs under the guise of society's best interest's is wrong, IMHO.
Low inheritance taxes preserves an effective nobility and leisure class that will use an accident of birth to make a living as a shareholder. Arguably the builders of wealth should obtain such benefits - not their progeny. Descendents should be provided equal opportunity to compete based on their own merits and talents.
I can't believe I just read this. So the government gets to decide what YOUR family can and cannot pass along to you? I find the mere notion of that offensive. Low death taxes may well result in some folks enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor (their fathers for example), but the idea that the government should level the playing field with some sort of tax is socialistic at best and downright theivery at worst. Should Uncle Sam take material possessions too, comrade? After all, they could be liquidated and the money from them could put someone ahead!! The horror.
Who knows. It's no secret that plenty of people have been clamoring for it, myself included. I've made do with the current behavior for now, as I hate OE, but I agree that it's frustrating to see what is by all accounts a highly requested feature, getting ignored.
Wow. I love TB, but at least for now it's Usenet features are nothing to brag about. If the Mac platform doesn't offer something better for reading newsgroups, I feel for you.
Considering Thunderbird is still very much a beta (at least as far as the version number is concerned), I'd say they still have time to change it again if they deemed it necessary. Part of the overall polish of any application is look and feel. People won't use it if it doesn't look good. And it doesn't take an expert to notice that the icons, artwork, etc in pre.6 Thunderbird were not up to spec. Considering the type of user that TB is attracting at it's 1.0 state, I don't think anyone's going to be "lost" by the changes.
Hmm, this must be specific to Linux builds. I've used TB on XP since.4, and while I certainly have upgraded to the latest and greatest (or will I should say, I'm technically still on.6 RC2), I haven't noticed any huge strides in performance. Of course, I've never noticed TB to be particularly sluggish anyway.
I don't get what it is you don't get. In a loser pays system, patent holders are less likely to pursue litigation in situations where there is little chance of them coming out on top, as they have to pay both their own AND the defendants legal fees. Right now, assuming they can afford their own, they can just spam lawsuits *cough* SCO *cough* and pray some of them stick. Hell, even if loser pays doesn't discourage frivolous litigation, at least it provides some financial protection to the guy getting sued.
If you consider demand as equal to the number of Internet users, then yeah I guess we do have the largest demand. I was not aware however, that Europe had found the solution to spam. By all means, if you folks have found some sort of "conclusive" legislation that works, please let us know. I for one have seen no evidence that Europe's governments are any less ignorant regarding tech issues than ours.
I don't know that it could really reset 100% of traffic going through a router. As the article states, most TCP connections don't last long enough for such an attack to be executed. BGP, one of the core routing protocols however, relies on relatively long TCP connections, and hence the exploit could seriously screw up internet routing.
Lol, maybe I should offer some chocolate to whoever modded me down. But seriously, whoever decided to print this passwords for chocolate article is a moron.
Not a troll, but this is really one of the stupidest./ articles I've seen in a while. I mean, is it really news to anyone that Joe lUser doesn't understand the need to keep his computing environment secure?
There isn't much for Rush Limbaugh to be accurate about. He and other talk radio types don't typically break any new stories. They just beat issues that are already out there to death by providing opinions and conjectures about how the issue supports thier view.
The point: Most readers will trade off accuracy for someone who's openly in their philosophical or political corner.
Most readers will naturally flock to a source that reflects their philisophical/political views sure, but do they actually realize they are trading accuracy? I certainly can't understand why anyone would willingly get their information from an inaccruate source, and then use that information to either form opinions or attempt to advance their views. It kind of hurts someone's arguement when they base it on inaccurate information.
Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess.:P
I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference, as I see it, is that an airplane can be hijacked and itself used as a weapon. I suppose a subway could be hijacked, but considering they can only be driven on the track, doing so would be of limited utility. You'd have to have a bomb, which hopefully could be detected by conventional means. I guess what I'm saying is that you'd have to have more than just malicious intent to do damage to the subway system.
I understand the attack you describe, but I fail to understand how it decreases security. There will most certainly be some terrorists who are too stupid or disorganized to do "test runs", and even for those who do, doesn't this screening give them another hoop to jump through? Now we can debate whether or not having the airline industry share passenger data is a worthwhile tradeoff for giving terrorists a "hoop", but that's another post.
Am I supposed to be outraged by this or something? I'm sorry but we NEED to know whether people who are trying to get on an airplane are on some watchlist or what have you. So I'm afraid that the basic need to be secure trumps some schmuck's paranoia that the gov't knows he's travelling from point a to point b.
I don't follow you. Yes, people who's health has been harmed by smoking have no one to blame but them selves. I don't support their right to sue the tobacco companies for anything. Just as when you buy from the ITMS. You knew the agreement when you purchased the music, it's too bad if you decide you can't live with it later. Your choice is to not do business with the ITMS.
I'm saying I'd like to be able to use my intuition to determine the sincerity of someone requesting a service, and having an operator in the middle hampers my ability to do that.
The crime itself is the same but it's much harder for the retailer to be suspicious of an American operator who isn't speaking improper English with a heavy accent of some sort.
Ok, how about because you agree to Apple's licensing scheme when you buy music from the ITMS? Meaning you can only listen to it on up to 3 PCs, iPod etc. This license supercedes some of what would typically be fair use. And since you did agree to the terms of the license, the question should be why isn't it your fault?
Slashdot Mirror
It's the fan in my pc that's loud not the processor. even small fans make noise.
Uhh, yeah. And the reason you NEED that big fan is because of all the heat that CPU is generating. Smaller fans = less noise.
I still have a couple Pentium I with MMX running and without a hitch. How much longer are you talking about?
And what kind of temps do they run at? Much cooler than a 3.2Ghz Prescott, I can promise you.
Not to sound like an Apple zealot (I'm far from it), but it seems like you've bought into the "Mhz myth" hook, line and sinker. Lower power and lower speeds does not need to equal lower performance.
Who says it's in our best interests to allow HIM to have that much power? I can tell you for a fact that no one asked me first, how about you? The point is, it's NOT our nor the governments place to "appropriate" BG's wealth so that his kin can't use it to exert undue influence over whatever. In all honesty I'm a moderate, getting moreso everyday in fact. But for any outside entity to tell someone what they can and can't bequeath to their heirs under the guise of society's best interest's is wrong, IMHO.
Low inheritance taxes preserves an effective nobility and leisure class that will use an accident of birth to make a living as a shareholder. Arguably the builders of wealth should obtain such benefits - not their progeny. Descendents should be provided equal opportunity to compete based on their own merits and talents.
I can't believe I just read this. So the government gets to decide what YOUR family can and cannot pass along to you? I find the mere notion of that offensive. Low death taxes may well result in some folks enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor (their fathers for example), but the idea that the government should level the playing field with some sort of tax is socialistic at best and downright theivery at worst. Should Uncle Sam take material possessions too, comrade? After all, they could be liquidated and the money from them could put someone ahead!! The horror.
Who knows. It's no secret that plenty of people have been clamoring for it, myself included. I've made do with the current behavior for now, as I hate OE, but I agree that it's frustrating to see what is by all accounts a highly requested feature, getting ignored.
Wow. I love TB, but at least for now it's Usenet features are nothing to brag about. If the Mac platform doesn't offer something better for reading newsgroups, I feel for you.
Considering Thunderbird is still very much a beta (at least as far as the version number is concerned), I'd say they still have time to change it again if they deemed it necessary. Part of the overall polish of any application is look and feel. People won't use it if it doesn't look good. And it doesn't take an expert to notice that the icons, artwork, etc in pre .6 Thunderbird were not up to spec. Considering the type of user that TB is attracting at it's 1.0 state, I don't think anyone's going to be "lost" by the changes.
Hmm, this must be specific to Linux builds. I've used TB on XP since .4, and while I certainly have upgraded to the latest and greatest (or will I should say, I'm technically still on .6 RC2), I haven't noticed any huge strides in performance. Of course, I've never noticed TB to be particularly sluggish anyway.
I don't get what it is you don't get. In a loser pays system, patent holders are less likely to pursue litigation in situations where there is little chance of them coming out on top, as they have to pay both their own AND the defendants legal fees. Right now, assuming they can afford their own, they can just spam lawsuits *cough* SCO *cough* and pray some of them stick. Hell, even if loser pays doesn't discourage frivolous litigation, at least it provides some financial protection to the guy getting sued.
If you consider demand as equal to the number of Internet users, then yeah I guess we do have the largest demand. I was not aware however, that Europe had found the solution to spam. By all means, if you folks have found some sort of "conclusive" legislation that works, please let us know. I for one have seen no evidence that Europe's governments are any less ignorant regarding tech issues than ours.
I know this is a joke, but isn't TTL based in hops? In which case it wouldn't affect it at all.
I don't know that it could really reset 100% of traffic going through a router. As the article states, most TCP connections don't last long enough for such an attack to be executed. BGP, one of the core routing protocols however, relies on relatively long TCP connections, and hence the exploit could seriously screw up internet routing.
A Beowulf cluster of parking meters imagines YOU!!!
Lol, maybe I should offer some chocolate to whoever modded me down. But seriously, whoever decided to print this passwords for chocolate article is a moron.
Not a troll, but this is really one of the stupidest ./ articles I've seen in a while. I mean, is it really news to anyone that Joe lUser doesn't understand the need to keep his computing environment secure?
Who the hell is trying to patent pop-up windows anyway? Because if it's not MS, Apple or maybe Xerox, there's no way it could be valid, right?
There isn't much for Rush Limbaugh to be accurate about. He and other talk radio types don't typically break any new stories. They just beat issues that are already out there to death by providing opinions and conjectures about how the issue supports thier view.
The point: Most readers will trade off accuracy for someone who's openly in their philosophical or political corner.
Most readers will naturally flock to a source that reflects their philisophical/political views sure, but do they actually realize they are trading accuracy? I certainly can't understand why anyone would willingly get their information from an inaccruate source, and then use that information to either form opinions or attempt to advance their views. It kind of hurts someone's arguement when they base it on inaccurate information.
Personally, I think the government is barking up the wrong tree with airplanes. What they should really be more worried about is the nation's subway systems. I hang my hat with the MBTA (Massachusetts subway system), and believe me when I say this: it would be trivial for someone to blow up a train. The collateral damage from an explosion going off at Park Street during rush hour would be devastating. But that's not really on-topic, I guess. :P
I agree that subways are an easy target. The main difference, as I see it, is that an airplane can be hijacked and itself used as a weapon. I suppose a subway could be hijacked, but considering they can only be driven on the track, doing so would be of limited utility. You'd have to have a bomb, which hopefully could be detected by conventional means. I guess what I'm saying is that you'd have to have more than just malicious intent to do damage to the subway system.
I understand the attack you describe, but I fail to understand how it decreases security. There will most certainly be some terrorists who are too stupid or disorganized to do "test runs", and even for those who do, doesn't this screening give them another hoop to jump through? Now we can debate whether or not having the airline industry share passenger data is a worthwhile tradeoff for giving terrorists a "hoop", but that's another post.
Am I supposed to be outraged by this or something? I'm sorry but we NEED to know whether people who are trying to get on an airplane are on some watchlist or what have you. So I'm afraid that the basic need to be secure trumps some schmuck's paranoia that the gov't knows he's travelling from point a to point b.
So you have a reasonable suspicion that the license is illegal? Or is the fact that it may be just an excuse for your behavior?
I don't follow you. Yes, people who's health has been harmed by smoking have no one to blame but them selves. I don't support their right to sue the tobacco companies for anything. Just as when you buy from the ITMS. You knew the agreement when you purchased the music, it's too bad if you decide you can't live with it later. Your choice is to not do business with the ITMS.
I'm saying I'd like to be able to use my intuition to determine the sincerity of someone requesting a service, and having an operator in the middle hampers my ability to do that.
The crime itself is the same but it's much harder for the retailer to be suspicious of an American operator who isn't speaking improper English with a heavy accent of some sort.
Now, tell me why it's my fault again?
Ok, how about because you agree to Apple's licensing scheme when you buy music from the ITMS? Meaning you can only listen to it on up to 3 PCs, iPod etc. This license supercedes some of what would typically be fair use. And since you did agree to the terms of the license, the question should be why isn't it your fault?