You honestly believe that *any* billion dollar corporation could be so stupid? I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't care about profit. Every for-profit company does. But they'd have to be incomprehensibly stupid to not care about their customers to the extreme that you claim.
In short: Go be an asshat someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
Just because a CFL has a modern electronic ballast doesn't mean it will be flicker free. Temperature can have an effect on them. I have a couple of fixtures with electronic ballasts that flicker like hell when it's cold. It can take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes for them to warm themselves up to where they don't flicker. And if it's really cold, then they will flicker no matter how long they're left running.
Also, some electronic lighting controls don't work well with electronic ballasts. Somehow they interfere with each other, I'm not sure of the details of why this is. In such cases, for example with motion detection switches, you need to use a fixture with a magnetic ballast, or just not use a fluorescent bulb at all.
All you Democrats who complain about the administration's wiretapping, warrantless searches, and other invasions of our privacy, what do you think of this?
I don't know about those Democrats (or those Republicans), but the rest of us, who have more sensibility, think that all these shenanigans, whether it be light bulbs or warrantless wiretaps, are sadly misguided.
He's asking about one that says things like, "You know, you really should consider vacuuming today. This place is a sty. Seriously, I've seen frat-houses that had cleaner floors. Come on, take me for a spin... you know you want to."
Thermal stress resulting from temperature swings and the accompanying expansion and contraction of components -- at different rates, due to differing materials, mind you -- will accelerate wear-and-tear on just about anything, electronics included.
Leaving a computer running all the time stabilizes the temperature.
Wouldn't a "Pro Female Gamer" be someone who professionally plays female characters?
No, I think a pro-female gamer is any gamer, either male or female, playing male, female, or even non-gendered characters, who happens to be in support of the existence of females. As in the opposite of an anti-female gamer.:P
I can't believe I'm about to write a "me too" comment, but....
Just the other day, I hooked up my wife's PowerBook G4 to our TV. First with, S-video because I figured it would be the easiest. Quickly, in utter disgust, I disconnected it after seeing how gawdawful the picture quality was. Looking back on it, what the hell did I expect at 480i?
Connecting the DVI up and setting the resolution to 720p was a relief. Now I had a picture worth looking at. No S-video you say? Good riddance.
7) The two finger trackpad is AWESOME. I mean, it's OK for the second button and all; much better for right-clicking than control-click, in my mind. But the key is two-finger scrolling. Once you're used to it, you'll feel like any laptop that doesn't support it is a toy. Two finger scrolling a pretty great jump forward in human-computer interface.
Do you use Firefox for web browsing? I found that neither IE nor Safari were acceptable (websites I needed to use didn't work in one or both). So I had to use Firefox. Annoyingly, Firefox didn't treat two-finger horizontal scolling as scrolling. Instead, it somehow interpreted any horizontal motion during two-finger scrolling to mean that I wanted to go "back" or "forward". You can guess just how unusable a browser is if it goes back ten pages because you accidentally moved your hand 1mm to the left while attempting to scroll down a page.
Anyway, I guess I'm wondering if anyone who regularly uses this feature has figured out how to fix this problem. I worked around it by not using two-finger scrolling, but I'd like to use it.
I am waiting for the next artical from sombody saying about education issues because som stupid kids was released early from skool because there brains must of leaked out of there head.
I love the smell of roasted flamebait in the morning...
I'd guess you've probably never actually used OS X. Or at least not enough to be truly familiar with it. I'd further guess that you're either:
a) an Apple hater (god knows why, maybe you lost a boat load of money on Apple stock in the 90s?)
b) Your a Windows or Linux fanboy that just can't stand to be one-upped by a tree-hugging hippie flower loving company like Apple.
Maybe all that hippie tree-hugging stuff is just a front though. Ever consider that? Maybe there are actually *gasp* a large group of nerdy engineers working at Apple, and they just happen to have a Marketing department that knows how to hide that "ugly" little fact.
... that I'm glad this isn't (apparently) too easy to do? It should always be hard to break standards, especially on the Internet. Otherwise, the next thing you know, when powerful interest groups (think MPAA, RIAA, et al.) get large ISPs (think AOL, Comcast, et al.) in their back pockets... well, I think you can guess what happens next.
We wait for our machines to synchronize with the latest network data.
Done that.
We wait for out machines to convert the latest game data to the target platform.
Check.
We wait for the editor and tools to launch.
Yep.
We waste time manually loading and manipulating the game to get to the area we are testing/working on.
Sounds familiar.
We rarely use crash dumps correctly. When a rare crash is reported, we go back to our computers and waste time trying to reproduce it in the debugger.
Happens all the time.
Sounds just like where I work. Except I'm not in the gaming industry. These are problems that are prevalent throughout the entire software engineering world.
Online email providers like Gmail and Yahoo are in a good position to protect their customers against this.
Imagine if you will, that Gmail's mail servers would instantly, upon receiving an HTML message, retrieve all cacheable resources linked by the message and save copies of those resources on Gmail's servers. The sender gets little to no useful information out of it (all they know for certain is that Gmail's servers received the message shortly after it was sent). Gmail's servers would replace URLs embedded in the HTML for those cached resources with URLs pointing to Gmail's cached copies. When the recipient reads the message, any HTTP requests sent by the recipient's computer would be sent only to Gmail's servers, which would send the cached copies of the resources in response, thus preventing the recipient's computer from needing to access the original sender's servers to retrieve the resources. The original sender has no idea who read the message, or when they read it, or even if it was ever read at all.
Any non-cacheable content (if there even is such a thing) could just be blocked, or at least require the user's consent before sending a request to the original sender's servers. This would enable (most, if not all) HTML mail to still be useful, while protecting recipients of HTML mail from these immoral (and possibly illegal) shenanigans.
This could probably be done much more quickly and easily than trying to patch web browsers or other email clients. Hell, for all I know Gmail (or Yahoo or some other provider) may already be doing this.
Hell, in that case, why not just put a monkey in the Whitehouse and let a reserve captain and another dude with 5 deferrals take care of business...oh, wait... Cheney ran away from his duties 5 times, no? And Bush, the intreprid flyboy was courageously patrolling Southern US sky to prevent the mighty Mexican airforce from invading the US during VN war of course qualifies him as a "security" leader, right?
You've got to be kidding me! You're falling back on the Chebacca defense that quickly? LOL! Next time, at least you could try to put up a little bit of a fight before just folding.
You're assuming that in 2003, DPRK and Iraq were identical with the exception that one was actively working on a nuclear weapon and the other was not.
This just isn't the case. DPRK hadn't invaded a neighboring country. DPRK was not under U.N. sanctions. DPRK hadn't failed to meet their obligations under the cease-fire that ended a war they started. DPRK wasn't actively attempting to shoot down U.N.-mandated air patrols over their country... etc, etc.
You see, it's not as simple as "one has a nuke and the other doesn't, so we should invade the one with the nuke". And that's without even mentioning the differences between the complex balance of power in those two very different regions of the world.
Do you really think that nobody in the White House ever believed that DPRK might be capable of producing a nuclear weapon? The U.S. has known about DPRK's ability to construct "Da Bomb" since at least October 2002, when the North Koreans all but admitted they were enriching weapons grade uranium.
The decision to deal forcefully with Iraq was not about whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon. If you'll recall, Iraq had actually invaded a neighboring country. You might also remember that Iraq never met its obligations under the terms of the cease fire that ended the war they had started. Iraq was under U.N. sanctions all the way up to the start of the war. They repeatedly kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors. Clearly there was justification to deal with Iraq, even though they did not have any nukes.
DPRK? They haven't invaded anyone. They're not under U.N. sanctions. Where's the justification to deal forcefully with them?
Remember how big of a stink most of the international community made about the U.S. proposal to deal with Iraq? Russia, France, Germany, and China? Remember how strongly they resisted the Iraq war? What makes you think they would have welcomed a proposal to deal forcefully with DPRK?
Even after this nuclear test, Russia, France, Germany, and China will probably not even consider the use of force. Maybe they will grudgingly accept imposing sanctions, but that's about it.
Those are the facts. That's the reality of the situation. But I guess if your main motivation is to just bash whichever politician you dislike the most, then you don't care about facts and reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You honestly believe that *any* billion dollar corporation could be so stupid? I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't care about profit. Every for-profit company does. But they'd have to be incomprehensibly stupid to not care about their customers to the extreme that you claim.
In short: Go be an asshat someplace else. We're all stocked up here.
Damn that's funny. Not that it should be. But for some reason *everything* is much more funny when it's in British English.
Just because a CFL has a modern electronic ballast doesn't mean it will be flicker free. Temperature can have an effect on them. I have a couple of fixtures with electronic ballasts that flicker like hell when it's cold. It can take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes for them to warm themselves up to where they don't flicker. And if it's really cold, then they will flicker no matter how long they're left running.
Also, some electronic lighting controls don't work well with electronic ballasts. Somehow they interfere with each other, I'm not sure of the details of why this is. In such cases, for example with motion detection switches, you need to use a fixture with a magnetic ballast, or just not use a fluorescent bulb at all.
In Soviet California, light bulbs screw you!
No, no, no... none of those are convincing.
He's asking about one that says things like, "You know, you really should consider vacuuming today. This place is a sty. Seriously, I've seen frat-houses that had cleaner floors. Come on, take me for a spin... you know you want to."
Wow! This has got to be a first! Even though the parent was the one who ducked, it ended up going over *your* head!
The actual standard will state the maximum distance in meters, not in feet. Whoever wrote the article did the conversion from meters to feet.
Just search IEEE 802.3 for yourself. You'll find no mention of "feet". Everything in there is measured in meters.
First, get a sense of humor.
Second, calling the cops and calling 911 are two very different things.
If the guys tearing up his phone lines had guns instead of IDs, then it would have been a totally different (and much more interesting!) story.
Fraud.
Already illegal and actionable in most places.
Wait... you called 911 because your DSL went down?
Thermal stress resulting from temperature swings and the accompanying expansion and contraction of components -- at different rates, due to differing materials, mind you -- will accelerate wear-and-tear on just about anything, electronics included.
Leaving a computer running all the time stabilizes the temperature.
I can't believe I'm about to write a "me too" comment, but....
Just the other day, I hooked up my wife's PowerBook G4 to our TV. First with, S-video because I figured it would be the easiest. Quickly, in utter disgust, I disconnected it after seeing how gawdawful the picture quality was. Looking back on it, what the hell did I expect at 480i?
Connecting the DVI up and setting the resolution to 720p was a relief. Now I had a picture worth looking at. No S-video you say? Good riddance.
Anyway, I guess I'm wondering if anyone who regularly uses this feature has figured out how to fix this problem. I worked around it by not using two-finger scrolling, but I'd like to use it.
I am waiting for the next artical from sombody saying about education issues because som stupid kids was released early from skool because there brains must of leaked out of there head.
I'd guess you've probably never actually used OS X. Or at least not enough to be truly familiar with it. I'd further guess that you're either:
- a) an Apple hater (god knows why, maybe you lost a boat load of money on Apple stock in the 90s?)
- b) Your a Windows or Linux fanboy that just can't stand to be one-upped by a tree-hugging hippie flower loving company like Apple.
Maybe all that hippie tree-hugging stuff is just a front though. Ever consider that? Maybe there are actually *gasp* a large group of nerdy engineers working at Apple, and they just happen to have a Marketing department that knows how to hide that "ugly" little fact.... that I'm glad this isn't (apparently) too easy to do? It should always be hard to break standards, especially on the Internet. Otherwise, the next thing you know, when powerful interest groups (think MPAA, RIAA, et al.) get large ISPs (think AOL, Comcast, et al.) in their back pockets... well, I think you can guess what happens next.
Break this! *obscene hand gesture*
That's funny as hell... but a little scary too, 'cause I think it might actually be true.
Done that.
Check.
Yep.
Sounds familiar.
Happens all the time.
Sounds just like where I work. Except I'm not in the gaming industry. These are problems that are prevalent throughout the entire software engineering world.
Online email providers like Gmail and Yahoo are in a good position to protect their customers against this.
Imagine if you will, that Gmail's mail servers would instantly, upon receiving an HTML message, retrieve all cacheable resources linked by the message and save copies of those resources on Gmail's servers. The sender gets little to no useful information out of it (all they know for certain is that Gmail's servers received the message shortly after it was sent). Gmail's servers would replace URLs embedded in the HTML for those cached resources with URLs pointing to Gmail's cached copies. When the recipient reads the message, any HTTP requests sent by the recipient's computer would be sent only to Gmail's servers, which would send the cached copies of the resources in response, thus preventing the recipient's computer from needing to access the original sender's servers to retrieve the resources. The original sender has no idea who read the message, or when they read it, or even if it was ever read at all.
Any non-cacheable content (if there even is such a thing) could just be blocked, or at least require the user's consent before sending a request to the original sender's servers. This would enable (most, if not all) HTML mail to still be useful, while protecting recipients of HTML mail from these immoral (and possibly illegal) shenanigans.
This could probably be done much more quickly and easily than trying to patch web browsers or other email clients. Hell, for all I know Gmail (or Yahoo or some other provider) may already be doing this.
You got so owned.
You're assuming that in 2003, DPRK and Iraq were identical with the exception that one was actively working on a nuclear weapon and the other was not.
This just isn't the case. DPRK hadn't invaded a neighboring country. DPRK was not under U.N. sanctions. DPRK hadn't failed to meet their obligations under the cease-fire that ended a war they started. DPRK wasn't actively attempting to shoot down U.N.-mandated air patrols over their country... etc, etc.
You see, it's not as simple as "one has a nuke and the other doesn't, so we should invade the one with the nuke". And that's without even mentioning the differences between the complex balance of power in those two very different regions of the world.
Do you really think that nobody in the White House ever believed that DPRK might be capable of producing a nuclear weapon? The U.S. has known about DPRK's ability to construct "Da Bomb" since at least October 2002, when the North Koreans all but admitted they were enriching weapons grade uranium.
The decision to deal forcefully with Iraq was not about whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon. If you'll recall, Iraq had actually invaded a neighboring country. You might also remember that Iraq never met its obligations under the terms of the cease fire that ended the war they had started. Iraq was under U.N. sanctions all the way up to the start of the war. They repeatedly kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors. Clearly there was justification to deal with Iraq, even though they did not have any nukes.
DPRK? They haven't invaded anyone. They're not under U.N. sanctions. Where's the justification to deal forcefully with them?
Remember how big of a stink most of the international community made about the U.S. proposal to deal with Iraq? Russia, France, Germany, and China? Remember how strongly they resisted the Iraq war? What makes you think they would have welcomed a proposal to deal forcefully with DPRK?
Even after this nuclear test, Russia, France, Germany, and China will probably not even consider the use of force. Maybe they will grudgingly accept imposing sanctions, but that's about it.
Those are the facts. That's the reality of the situation. But I guess if your main motivation is to just bash whichever politician you dislike the most, then you don't care about facts and reality.