the people you gave them to...did you actually *know* them? Is it possible that one of them was a spammer, or that one of the people that you invited then invited a spammer?
If so, then you could be cut off for that reason. You may want to check.
seems if he's punching the screen of a laptop though, he's not going to do something that will cause OS issues, regardless. And those displays are really quite fragile still - much more fragile than any of the parts nowhere near the screen.
A man suddenly found his laptop would only boot up to the 'blue screen of death', putting his data at risk. A week later, his nephew admitted that he used its screen as a punching bag to relieve his frustrations with the slow computer. The man sent his nephew back to live with his parents.
It took him a week to notice someone had "punched" the lcd on his laptop?
An lcd will crack, and not cause the system to bluescreen...why would the OS know or care that the lcd is shattered? And why would that take a week to notice?
Sounds like someone was just trying to get some hits on that ad-infested page.
hmm...I'll concur that modern domesticated hogs in the US do have issues with dry skin (and thus need it to get hydrated). I don't know what they would have been like back then, though.
As for the grass/grain arguement...cows are much more productive on grains too, but those weren't unclean. Though, cows can certainly eat grass...
eh, who knows. As a vegetarian, I don't eat any of them;)
same here. I'm actually against the unnecessary suffering of any animal or person..."unnecessary" being vague of course. Personal responsibility plays in highly. The line of thought makes me against abortion (with the time period when there's not a functioning brain being very grey). I'm quite healthy as a vegetarian (near-vegan, but darn those organic free-range eggs, their protein tempts me every once in a while...)
Now...along that same vein...if, like me, you think something incapable of feeling pain (blastocyst to very early fetus) is ok(ish) to be aborted...
What if someone humanely retrieved an oocyte, fertilized it, and from it mesodermal cells and then grew regular old striated muscle on a mass scale? It would be *real* meat, and it wouldn't cause all the enviromental issues our current meat industry causes (greenhouse gases, cows eating 10x as much as they produce, nutrition-wise, etc). It also wouldn't involve suffering.
Would it really then come to whether or not it could actually be shown that the oocyte retrieval caused any unnecessary suffering? Because really, that could be accomplished relatively easily. Then what? Vegetarian-ok?
I wondered this myself until recently, when I found that all scientific evidence is that at the time the pork was declared "unclean," it was no more likely to have problems than beef. That is - no tric back then at all, and all the other problems were far far less.
So no, the restrictions had nothing to do with health. I did used to think "well, maybe God was just telling them not to eat it because it was bad for them" but no...that wasn't the case (unless God was just preparing them for the reality of today's pork...)
artificial sweeteners are not chemically and otherwise identical to sugar...else, they'd just be sugar.
If there was a company selling lab-grown sugar, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the stuff grown outside a lab.
See, this "artificial meat" is grown having the same sort of tissues, and being (for all intents and purposes) meat, just without the inefficient cow having to be killed after a lifetime of producing greenhouse gases.
I had a horde of linux and solaris servers authenticating to AD, and had cross-platform user dirs on SANs to give it all a consistent look and feel...only took me a couple weekends. Does that make me a large staff of very talented programmers? I'm not even a programmer, I didn't think...
though, I will say that yes - I generally only install from "trusted" providers (mozilla, gnu, whatever), and that if I deviate from that, I do indeed read the sources.
But I'm not normal. I don't even play computer games or watch tv. So what the hell do I know...
the dhcp server will still check the mac on record, to see if it's still there and still using that IP. If your comp is turned off, then sure...that's a problem. If you're still sitting there working away, no problem. Tada.
THE POINT IS THAT YOU CAN TURN OF DHCP CLIENT AND YOU'LL BE JUST FINE.
Lets look at what I was responding to, shall we? " It should be no surprise that networking can get quite strange without DNS Client and DHCP Client (among others)..."
Turn off your "DNS client" - almost no one has such a thing running, unless they're the rare person with a local dns cache for some reason.
Turn "off" your dhcp client. What happens? Nothing. Keep using your computer.
maybe I was trying to trick someone into saying something;) Yes, I'm aware of what arp traffic is, and that "ports" are something that occur in tcp/ip traffic.
sad that you got modded "informative..." (not being insulting, just saying).
your dhcp client only runs once. That's it. It's not a service. Tell me what port it's polling on? What would the dhcp "service" be doing, anyway?
If your provider only grants a 1 hour lease, then the provider, within the hour, is checking to see if your mac still has that IP. That's it - your "service" is doing nothing.
Do a scan on your box and tell me what port you think is open that is constantly sending arp traffic. What OS, even? Windows? Turn off your dhcp "service," and statically set your ip to what your dhcp client had gotten. You'll find you're still perfectly fine.
Just what is it you think this "service" is doing to maintain the lease?
Tiger also doesn't need virus protection, or a couple other things. Hard to say in the end, I guess. The other issue is that XP home is pretty lame - whereas Tiger is not. How much is XP pro?
Are there pistol hunting magazines? No. Why? Because pistols are inaccurate. Why are archery competitions always at longer ranges than pistol competitions? Because pistols are LESS FARKING ACCURATE.
Again - you're effectively asking me to find someone who has dedicated a sight to races between 18wheelers and motorcycles. Anyone that knows much about both knows there's not a point in wondering about the race, because the motorcycle will win. The pistol has it's own utility though - it can be put in a pocket, and pulled out and used against someone (ie - a person) that didn't know you were armed.
Pistols are not useful for *anything* other than short-range, and most of that is against people. Some is against snakes or rabid dogs, but for the most part...people. Do cops carry bows and arrows? No, because they don't need to shoot someone 200 yards away, they need to shoot someone up close that is attacking them.
I just tried to find anything comparing the two (since hey, like I said and you ignored, people masturbate with sandpaper) and the only thing that came up that made comments along these lines was this site, with the quote "Accuracy. 50 yards is a looooong way with a pistol" and "Only the internet have people shooting handguns and killing deer and such at 100yrds plus." Note that these people are pistol lovers! Also note that 400 year old bows were accurately used at 250 yards!
Will you freakin get a grip, and actually go USE goth types of weapons before continuing to talk out of your ass? The only reason it isn't overwhelmingly obvious to you that bows are considerably more accurate than handguns, is because you don't have experience with both (or hell, you probably don't have any experience with either weapon).
Just go to a range somewhere. Do it *yourself*. You're trying to race a motorcycle and an 18 wheeler. While people who don't know anything about either vehicle might not know better (geeks on/.? say it isn't so!) go tell someone who knows jack about either that you think the 18-wheeler will win the race. That's what you're saying. There won't be sites dedicated to it, because it's OBVIOUS to anyone who would have the data to compile into a site in the first place.
tell you what - for every "pistol hunting" magazine you can find (where the targets aren't human) I'll find 20 bow hunting magazines. Why? Because people hunt with bows, but they don't with pistols...within the standard deviation, at least. There are people that masturbate with sandpaper too, which would be just as intelligent. As such, in a world of 8 billion people, I can't really say "no one hunts with pistols" because, well, there's plenty of #'s to account for people doing stupid things.
It's simply common knowledge. Maybe not for you, but that's just because you don't know much about the subject. It would be like asking me to find sites comparing speeds of 18 wheelers to speeds of motorcycles - why would someone dedicate a site to that? It should be apparent to anyone who knows anything about both vehicles.
Why don't you go target practice with an arrangement of both weapons, and get back to me.
the fact that longbow competitions have further ranges than those for pistols doesn't matter to you, does it.
You don't even know what ammunition you've used. I, on the other hand, was an 0311 infantry grunt in the United States Marine Corps. I've been trained to use more different types of weapons than you've probably even seen.
oh and note that I never said shotguns aren't used for hunting - I said handguns aren't. Shotguns are great for hitting birds, who are genetically trained from countless millenia of experience that once they are in the air, they are safe. Shoot a cloud of bb's at a bird, know how to overshoot for the rapid deceleration of the cloud, and tada! Dead bird. No need for accuracy with a shotgun. You might want to go down and shoot a shotgun at a target at some point, and see what happens. It might be pretty informative, since you seem to think accuracy matters a hill of beans with shotguns.
do YOU know what a shotgun is? Shotguns don't need to be accurate - they spray hundreds of small pellets.
A rifle is called a rifle because it has rifling - the barrel is designed to spin the bullet, and to be long enough to straighten out it's path.
A handgun doesn't have that, nor does it have the benefit of spray.
600 years ago, longbowmen were accurately hitting targets at 250 yards. Why? The feathers on an arrow are designed to give that same rifling effect.
In the Olympics, archery is done at 70 meters. The longest range for pistols is 50 meters. Contests for archery generally are done at longer ranges than handguns. Why? A bullet from a pistol will certainly travel much, much further than an arrow. The problem is simply that handguns are *inaccurate*. The distances used in archery are simply because of the actual *range* of the weapon, not it's accuracy.
Try to get a little informed before you attempt to correct someone.
first: bows have better accuracy than handguns. A good archer can adjust for things. An expert marksman can't adjust for the fact that a handgun doesn't fix imperfect bullets.
handguns are not used for food. That is to say, some backwards freak in arkansas might be doing it, but 99.999999% of all food shot by a gun is shot by a rifle, not a handgun.
Handguns are inaccurate, and don't have good range at all. Most things worth eating won't let you get close enough for a handgun to be even mildly accurate...except maybe a cow.
Slashdot Mirror
the people you gave them to...did you actually *know* them? Is it possible that one of them was a spammer, or that one of the people that you invited then invited a spammer?
If so, then you could be cut off for that reason. You may want to check.
seems if he's punching the screen of a laptop though, he's not going to do something that will cause OS issues, regardless. And those displays are really quite fragile still - much more fragile than any of the parts nowhere near the screen.
A man suddenly found his laptop would only boot up to the 'blue screen of death', putting his data at risk. A week later, his nephew admitted that he used its screen as a punching bag to relieve his frustrations with the slow computer. The man sent his nephew back to live with his parents.
It took him a week to notice someone had "punched" the lcd on his laptop?
An lcd will crack, and not cause the system to bluescreen...why would the OS know or care that the lcd is shattered? And why would that take a week to notice?
Sounds like someone was just trying to get some hits on that ad-infested page.
how did the sales link get slashdotted after only 1 post? yeesh...
hmm...I'll concur that modern domesticated hogs in the US do have issues with dry skin (and thus need it to get hydrated). I don't know what they would have been like back then, though.
;)
As for the grass/grain arguement...cows are much more productive on grains too, but those weren't unclean. Though, cows can certainly eat grass...
eh, who knows. As a vegetarian, I don't eat any of them
same here. I'm actually against the unnecessary suffering of any animal or person..."unnecessary" being vague of course. Personal responsibility plays in highly. The line of thought makes me against abortion (with the time period when there's not a functioning brain being very grey). I'm quite healthy as a vegetarian (near-vegan, but darn those organic free-range eggs, their protein tempts me every once in a while...)
Now...along that same vein...if, like me, you think something incapable of feeling pain (blastocyst to very early fetus) is ok(ish) to be aborted...
What if someone humanely retrieved an oocyte, fertilized it, and from it mesodermal cells and then grew regular old striated muscle on a mass scale? It would be *real* meat, and it wouldn't cause all the enviromental issues our current meat industry causes (greenhouse gases, cows eating 10x as much as they produce, nutrition-wise, etc). It also wouldn't involve suffering.
Would it really then come to whether or not it could actually be shown that the oocyte retrieval caused any unnecessary suffering? Because really, that could be accomplished relatively easily. Then what? Vegetarian-ok?
I wondered this myself until recently, when I found that all scientific evidence is that at the time the pork was declared "unclean," it was no more likely to have problems than beef. That is - no tric back then at all, and all the other problems were far far less.
So no, the restrictions had nothing to do with health. I did used to think "well, maybe God was just telling them not to eat it because it was bad for them" but no...that wasn't the case (unless God was just preparing them for the reality of today's pork...)
artificial sweeteners are not chemically and otherwise identical to sugar...else, they'd just be sugar.
If there was a company selling lab-grown sugar, I bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the stuff grown outside a lab.
See, this "artificial meat" is grown having the same sort of tissues, and being (for all intents and purposes) meat, just without the inefficient cow having to be killed after a lifetime of producing greenhouse gases.
I had a horde of linux and solaris servers authenticating to AD, and had cross-platform user dirs on SANs to give it all a consistent look and feel...only took me a couple weekends. Does that make me a large staff of very talented programmers? I'm not even a programmer, I didn't think...
//golf clap
though, I will say that yes - I generally only install from "trusted" providers (mozilla, gnu, whatever), and that if I deviate from that, I do indeed read the sources.
But I'm not normal. I don't even play computer games or watch tv. So what the hell do I know...
They have done something that other computer companies only dream of:
If we're going to suggest that one shouldn't love or hate a business, then we shouldn't say that companies "dream." Companies don't dream - people do.
oh good God people...
the dhcp server will still check the mac on record, to see if it's still there and still using that IP. If your comp is turned off, then sure...that's a problem. If you're still sitting there working away, no problem. Tada.
THE POINT IS THAT YOU CAN TURN OF DHCP CLIENT AND YOU'LL BE JUST FINE.
Lets look at what I was responding to, shall we? " It should be no surprise that networking can get quite strange without DNS Client and DHCP Client (among others)..."
Turn off your "DNS client" - almost no one has such a thing running, unless they're the rare person with a local dns cache for some reason.
Turn "off" your dhcp client. What happens? Nothing. Keep using your computer.
So...what gets "quite strange?"
maybe I was trying to trick someone into saying something ;) Yes, I'm aware of what arp traffic is, and that "ports" are something that occur in tcp/ip traffic.
sad that you got modded "informative..." (not being insulting, just saying).
your dhcp client only runs once. That's it. It's not a service. Tell me what port it's polling on? What would the dhcp "service" be doing, anyway?
If your provider only grants a 1 hour lease, then the provider, within the hour, is checking to see if your mac still has that IP. That's it - your "service" is doing nothing.
Do a scan on your box and tell me what port you think is open that is constantly sending arp traffic. What OS, even? Windows? Turn off your dhcp "service," and statically set your ip to what your dhcp client had gotten. You'll find you're still perfectly fine.
Just what is it you think this "service" is doing to maintain the lease?
Tiger also doesn't need virus protection, or a couple other things. Hard to say in the end, I guess. The other issue is that XP home is pretty lame - whereas Tiger is not. How much is XP pro?
dhcp client only runs once - it's not a "service" per se, because once you have your ip it's done. If you ahve a static IP, you don't need it at all.
you only have a dns "client" running local if you're doing local caching. While this is certainly reasonable, it's not the norm.
So umm..networking can get quite normal without them.
simple solution - have two versions of OS X that you release. One that only installs on apples, another that installs on anything but costs $X more.
are you this much of a stubborn idiot in person?
/.? say it isn't so!) go tell someone who knows jack about either that you think the 18-wheeler will win the race. That's what you're saying. There won't be sites dedicated to it, because it's OBVIOUS to anyone who would have the data to compile into a site in the first place.
GO USE BOTH YOURSELF.
It is *obvious* to anyone who has.
Are there pistol hunting magazines? No. Why? Because pistols are inaccurate. Why are archery competitions always at longer ranges than pistol competitions? Because pistols are LESS FARKING ACCURATE.
Again - you're effectively asking me to find someone who has dedicated a sight to races between 18wheelers and motorcycles. Anyone that knows much about both knows there's not a point in wondering about the race, because the motorcycle will win. The pistol has it's own utility though - it can be put in a pocket, and pulled out and used against someone (ie - a person) that didn't know you were armed.
Pistols are not useful for *anything* other than short-range, and most of that is against people. Some is against snakes or rabid dogs, but for the most part...people. Do cops carry bows and arrows? No, because they don't need to shoot someone 200 yards away, they need to shoot someone up close that is attacking them.
I just tried to find anything comparing the two (since hey, like I said and you ignored, people masturbate with sandpaper) and the only thing that came up that made comments along these lines was this site, with the quote "Accuracy. 50 yards is a looooong way with a pistol" and "Only the internet have people shooting handguns and killing deer and such at 100yrds plus." Note that these people are pistol lovers! Also note that 400 year old bows were accurately used at 250 yards!
Will you freakin get a grip, and actually go USE goth types of weapons before continuing to talk out of your ass? The only reason it isn't overwhelmingly obvious to you that bows are considerably more accurate than handguns, is because you don't have experience with both (or hell, you probably don't have any experience with either weapon).
Just go to a range somewhere. Do it *yourself*. You're trying to race a motorcycle and an 18 wheeler. While people who don't know anything about either vehicle might not know better (geeks on
tell you what - for every "pistol hunting" magazine you can find (where the targets aren't human) I'll find 20 bow hunting magazines. Why? Because people hunt with bows, but they don't with pistols...within the standard deviation, at least. There are people that masturbate with sandpaper too, which would be just as intelligent. As such, in a world of 8 billion people, I can't really say "no one hunts with pistols" because, well, there's plenty of #'s to account for people doing stupid things.
It's simply common knowledge. Maybe not for you, but that's just because you don't know much about the subject. It would be like asking me to find sites comparing speeds of 18 wheelers to speeds of motorcycles - why would someone dedicate a site to that? It should be apparent to anyone who knows anything about both vehicles.
Why don't you go target practice with an arrangement of both weapons, and get back to me.
how much more proof do you need than archery competitions are at a longer range than pistol competitions?
the fact that longbow competitions have further ranges than those for pistols doesn't matter to you, does it.
You don't even know what ammunition you've used. I, on the other hand, was an 0311 infantry grunt in the United States Marine Corps. I've been trained to use more different types of weapons than you've probably even seen.
oh and note that I never said shotguns aren't used for hunting - I said handguns aren't. Shotguns are great for hitting birds, who are genetically trained from countless millenia of experience that once they are in the air, they are safe. Shoot a cloud of bb's at a bird, know how to overshoot for the rapid deceleration of the cloud, and tada! Dead bird. No need for accuracy with a shotgun. You might want to go down and shoot a shotgun at a target at some point, and see what happens. It might be pretty informative, since you seem to think accuracy matters a hill of beans with shotguns.
do YOU know what a shotgun is? Shotguns don't need to be accurate - they spray hundreds of small pellets.
A rifle is called a rifle because it has rifling - the barrel is designed to spin the bullet, and to be long enough to straighten out it's path.
A handgun doesn't have that, nor does it have the benefit of spray.
600 years ago, longbowmen were accurately hitting targets at 250 yards. Why? The feathers on an arrow are designed to give that same rifling effect.
In the Olympics, archery is done at 70 meters. The longest range for pistols is 50 meters. Contests for archery generally are done at longer ranges than handguns. Why? A bullet from a pistol will certainly travel much, much further than an arrow. The problem is simply that handguns are *inaccurate*. The distances used in archery are simply because of the actual *range* of the weapon, not it's accuracy.
Try to get a little informed before you attempt to correct someone.
first: bows have better accuracy than handguns. A good archer can adjust for things. An expert marksman can't adjust for the fact that a handgun doesn't fix imperfect bullets.
Second, shotguns aren't handguns.
handguns are not used for food. That is to say, some backwards freak in arkansas might be doing it, but 99.999999% of all food shot by a gun is shot by a rifle, not a handgun.
Handguns are inaccurate, and don't have good range at all. Most things worth eating won't let you get close enough for a handgun to be even mildly accurate...except maybe a cow.