Example, the Rebellion in Star Wars would not be deemed terrorists because they only attacked Empire military installations or craft. The American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the same; they may have resorted to some guerrilla warfare type tactics, but against British soldiers; they didn't sail off to Great Britain and start planting bombs in random horse carriages to blow up the civilians.
The rebels didn't (that I'm aware of, I'm not a starwars fan) bomb the imperial senate, and the American revolutionaries didn't bomb parliament.
I think the most awesome revelation about this whole thing is that you can stop a lot of people from accessing the internet if you simply DDoS heartbeat.belkin.com.
Do you realize how much hard technical work went into making cell-tower handoff work seamlessly at highway speeds?
For texting? Not much.
Talking on the phone while driving however doesn't require taking your eyes off of the road any more than say changing radio stations. I have an android phone that I frequently answer without even looking at it (while driving and while not driving.) It's also no more dangerous than talking to other people in the car.
Do you think the phone companies did that merely to capture revenue from the conversations the passengers were having?
Regardless, I'm not sure how having that feature and even making that feature be a premium is somehow a bad thing. If anything it tells you how far the phone company is willing to bend over backwards to keep you as a customer.
I'm not predicting Microsoft's demise, rather just saying that they'll step out of the limelight. Even during its worst years of slowest growth, Apple was still a multi-billion dollar company.
At any rate, Microsoft already are no longer the dominant consumer OS vendor; that crown now belongs to Google as Android alone (not even counting chrome OS) already runs on more devices than Windows, iOS, and OSX combined.
Exactly. I'd venture to guess that we're already living in a world where 99% of all jobs are now automated.
Some examples:
- There was once a time when an operator was required to connect each one of your phone calls to another person.
- There was once a time when you paid somebody to send messages more than a few miles within the period of a day.
- There was once a time when the clothes you wore had to be hand made from start to finish, often involving multiple artisans to create. Now just one person can create a hundred in a day.
- There was once a time when each ear of corn had to be hand picked. Now one person picks several tons of them in a day.
The fact is that when old resources are freed up, other ones that were once only affordable by the rich become cheap enough that everybody has/does it, while at the same time something that was completely impractical to ever have before AT ALL is something for the rich.
This doom and gloom about technology taking jobs is just madness and it needs to stop.
Microsoft is still growing significantly, and Windows is not their biggest business.
Blackberry was still growing at a time when Android had already owned the market. The reason why is because the market itself was growing much faster. That fact didn't save them when their future prospects dried up though. Desktop systems are no longer the future consumer grade technology.
That doesn't mean desktops will go away, rather they'll eventually become the same as what feature phones currently are to smartphones. You know who dominated the feature phone space until recently? Nokia.
The smartphone/tablet explosion has led to a decline in the PC market but it's still 80-90% of the max volume with Microsoft still having a 90%+ PC market share.
Problem is the PC market is long saturated and now showing obvious signs of decline. Meanwhile, Microsoft has little to no presence in ANYTHING that is replacing it. Think what Apple was prior to iPod/Pad/Phone; that's Microsoft's future if things continue on the present course.
And unless any of the major Android manufacturers decide to get serious about x86 then Microsoft and Intel will still be allies in the struggle against Android/Apple
From what I understand, Intel is working towards riding the Android train, and they supposedly have more engineers working on Android than even Google does. Their idea is to have x86 eventually replace ARM as the de-facto architecture of Android, which involves a two way race of getting Android to run more efficiently on x86, and then build x86 to be more energy efficient than ARM. It seems they already have a lot invested into both of those races.
Also, HP seems to be pushing rather aggressively to have Android run on business desktop systems. Lenovo, ASUS, and Acer seem to have similar goals, though not as much as HP.
I've never really seen this happen. I've played a few FPS games (mainly NS2 lately) and WoW, both of which involve frequent use of voice chat, and pretty much the worst I've observed is some of the kids trying to hit on the women, and that seems to last for all of about 5 minutes after they first meet her.
(Though I think the biggest reason I've never actually hit on any women in any games is that I've been hit on by a man myself more than a few times, and I was a bit grossed out by it every time. I can't hit on any women because of this, come to think of it.)
This is more true than it should be. There's a whole generation of people using the Internet who literally don't know how to browse to a website directly. They don't know how an address bar works, and go to google to look up whatever they want. Even when they have the URL.
Maybe but Google is no more at fault for that than the phone companies are for texting while driving. The internet has been around for a lot longer than Google, and will probably be around a lot longer.
Besides that, when all things are considered, Google never at any point did anything to pressure users into using their search engine instead of hitting the pages directly. They didn't make themselves cheaper and they didn't use any existing muscle to force users over (they HAVE used their search dominance to expose themselves to other markets, but that isn't relevant to this discussion.) Not only that but they weren't even close to being the first search engine. People just liked them and they became popular; that's all there is to it. Bing can't even make that claim as Bing even offers money incentives to use their search engine in addition to making it the default search engine of their currently market dominating web browser, yet Bing still only manages to have a tiny (and money losing) search share compared to Google.
And so instead you see a bunch of lenses moving around which are considerably larger than the object they're trying to conceal, and furthermore would only work if all of them are oriented towards one particular viewer (viewers off to the side wouldn't be subject to this illusion.)
In other words, the Predator's plan of catching Arnie would fail pretty fast once his rear most lens bangs into a tree, knocking the whole thing out of alignment. Maybe Arnie doesn't see the predator, but he sees a strangely warped tree giving him plenty of warning which direction NOT to travel in in order to get to the choppa.
This. All they're really doing is using four lenses to move the light around the object, but it only really works if the object has to stay within a certain limited area. This technique would never work for something like Predator and certainly not for Romulan Warbirds.
The only time I've ever had a rental car was when somebody side swiped my 1996 salvaged title Lexus LS400 that had a lot of miles on it. The rental company would only give me a 2011 Dodge Sebring since the Lexus was only worth (blue book) about $3,000.
Although the interior looked nice as the car was basically brand new, overall it drove like a piece of shit compared to my (much cheaper) Lexus. If they would have thrown such a pitch at me, I would have happily told Dodge how much even their new cars suck hairy ass and balls compared to something Toyota made 15 years earlier.
time is practically unable to transmit HIV during sex.
No they are able to, just not likely. When it does happen, the results tend to be pretty bad as the virus that DOES spread tends to be resistant to multiple anti-HIV drugs, which means the recipient will be SOL when it comes to treatment and no amount of therapy will prevent the development of full blown aids.
IMO he probably still has traces of the virus within his body somewhere, but in such small quantities that it's undetectable. Other viruses are known to do this, such as chickenpox, which can resurface later in the form of shingles if the immune system ever weakens. Except HIV feeds off of the immune system itself, so it's likely he'll never see symptoms of it again.
However it would be unwise for him to do whatever he did to contract it in the first place as he could either spread his to somebody else or contract another variation of the disease that doesn't rely on the same receptor that he is now immune to (and yes, he does fit the "risk category" demographic if you haven't read his history.)
While I'm not a Gates fan, this whole thing looks like stupid urban rumor.
Looks like Bill's not too proud to revise history...
It seems to me that Bill isn't revising history here. He made the 64k to 640k comment in 1981, but never said anything about not needing more than that. Then infoworld pops this quote with no reference or anything. They certainly didn't interview him so where on earth did they pull that quote from? A lot of people have looked into it, including people from that page you sourced this from, yet nobody could find a proper source.
There used to be a series of commands you could send to a C64 to get the motor to do some fairly unnatural moves(such as slam down the write head and then eject, if I remember rightly. Its been a *long* time).
I don't think any of the C64 disk drives had a soft eject function. They either had the little spinny lever or the lip that you'd push in and up.
That was basically just a long winded way of saying nothing at all. I mean really, you could have saved my time and yours by not replying, because you provided an equal benefit as if you just hadn't even responded at all.
And warming, while accurate, doesn't really define what the real problem is. Warming isn't the problem. It's what happens as a result of the warming that's problem. The additional energy into the climate system shifts the climate, which we, as a civilization, depend on. Also, warming gives the impression that every place on Earth is going to get warmer, which is not the case.
Is CO2 really the cause though? I mean we already know that during the age of dinosaurs macro scale life thrived with atmospheric CO2 some 20 times what it is right now.
Furthermore, is warming really the problem? Because again, macro scale life did quite well at the time.
Also, historically speaking, we haven't seen any periods where warming has caused mass famine and/or extinction, and/or wars. We've seen the cold cause these things, but not warmth. We have however seen where bad economic policy has caused mas famine, wars, etc. That said, I'm not sure that making economic changes in the interest of arresting climate change (which is where the political conflict arises) is a good idea.
Holy fuck you actually read that wall of text enough to respond to it? That takes some effort...I forgot what I was doing after the first period. My combat log looked like this:
sillybilly's Wall of Text hits YOU for 923,532,262,523 (Critical) You die.
Yeah, some 97.5% of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles of the US/Canada border. Some of them live south of it (Detroit is north of Canada, after all.)
I remember him once commenting that if you don't make enough as a programmer because everything you write is free, then you ought to live for free in a college dorm like him.
Or that he believes not being able to code is a social problem in the same vein as not being able to read.
It's just things like that which make you wonder if he's even all there at times.
Serious question: Although I rarely troll myself, I rather do enjoy reading troll posts, and enjoy trolling if I can get the chance. That said, governments around the world are seriously considering making trolling a criminal offense; some already have. Have you thought about how this might affect 4chan? Or in the case where people post material that is illegal in their or even your hosted countr(ies) have they ever tried to make any kind of sanctions?
Slashdot Mirror
Example, the Rebellion in Star Wars would not be deemed terrorists because they only attacked Empire military installations or craft. The American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the same; they may have resorted to some guerrilla warfare type tactics, but against British soldiers; they didn't sail off to Great Britain and start planting bombs in random horse carriages to blow up the civilians.
The rebels didn't (that I'm aware of, I'm not a starwars fan) bomb the imperial senate, and the American revolutionaries didn't bomb parliament.
I think the most awesome revelation about this whole thing is that you can stop a lot of people from accessing the internet if you simply DDoS heartbeat.belkin.com.
Do you realize how much hard technical work went into making cell-tower handoff work seamlessly at highway speeds?
For texting? Not much.
Talking on the phone while driving however doesn't require taking your eyes off of the road any more than say changing radio stations. I have an android phone that I frequently answer without even looking at it (while driving and while not driving.) It's also no more dangerous than talking to other people in the car.
Do you think the phone companies did that merely to capture revenue from the conversations the passengers were having?
Regardless, I'm not sure how having that feature and even making that feature be a premium is somehow a bad thing. If anything it tells you how far the phone company is willing to bend over backwards to keep you as a customer.
I'm not predicting Microsoft's demise, rather just saying that they'll step out of the limelight. Even during its worst years of slowest growth, Apple was still a multi-billion dollar company.
At any rate, Microsoft already are no longer the dominant consumer OS vendor; that crown now belongs to Google as Android alone (not even counting chrome OS) already runs on more devices than Windows, iOS, and OSX combined.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Exactly. I'd venture to guess that we're already living in a world where 99% of all jobs are now automated.
Some examples:
- There was once a time when an operator was required to connect each one of your phone calls to another person.
- There was once a time when you paid somebody to send messages more than a few miles within the period of a day.
- There was once a time when the clothes you wore had to be hand made from start to finish, often involving multiple artisans to create. Now just one person can create a hundred in a day.
- There was once a time when each ear of corn had to be hand picked. Now one person picks several tons of them in a day.
The fact is that when old resources are freed up, other ones that were once only affordable by the rich become cheap enough that everybody has/does it, while at the same time something that was completely impractical to ever have before AT ALL is something for the rich.
This doom and gloom about technology taking jobs is just madness and it needs to stop.
Microsoft is still growing significantly, and Windows is not their biggest business.
Blackberry was still growing at a time when Android had already owned the market. The reason why is because the market itself was growing much faster. That fact didn't save them when their future prospects dried up though. Desktop systems are no longer the future consumer grade technology.
That doesn't mean desktops will go away, rather they'll eventually become the same as what feature phones currently are to smartphones. You know who dominated the feature phone space until recently? Nokia.
The smartphone/tablet explosion has led to a decline in the PC market but it's still 80-90% of the max volume with Microsoft still having a 90%+ PC market share.
Problem is the PC market is long saturated and now showing obvious signs of decline. Meanwhile, Microsoft has little to no presence in ANYTHING that is replacing it. Think what Apple was prior to iPod/Pad/Phone; that's Microsoft's future if things continue on the present course.
And unless any of the major Android manufacturers decide to get serious about x86 then Microsoft and Intel will still be allies in the struggle against Android/Apple
From what I understand, Intel is working towards riding the Android train, and they supposedly have more engineers working on Android than even Google does. Their idea is to have x86 eventually replace ARM as the de-facto architecture of Android, which involves a two way race of getting Android to run more efficiently on x86, and then build x86 to be more energy efficient than ARM. It seems they already have a lot invested into both of those races.
Also, HP seems to be pushing rather aggressively to have Android run on business desktop systems. Lenovo, ASUS, and Acer seem to have similar goals, though not as much as HP.
I've never really seen this happen. I've played a few FPS games (mainly NS2 lately) and WoW, both of which involve frequent use of voice chat, and pretty much the worst I've observed is some of the kids trying to hit on the women, and that seems to last for all of about 5 minutes after they first meet her.
(Though I think the biggest reason I've never actually hit on any women in any games is that I've been hit on by a man myself more than a few times, and I was a bit grossed out by it every time. I can't hit on any women because of this, come to think of it.)
This is more true than it should be. There's a whole generation of people using the Internet who literally don't know how to browse to a website directly. They don't know how an address bar works, and go to google to look up whatever they want. Even when they have the URL.
Maybe but Google is no more at fault for that than the phone companies are for texting while driving. The internet has been around for a lot longer than Google, and will probably be around a lot longer.
Besides that, when all things are considered, Google never at any point did anything to pressure users into using their search engine instead of hitting the pages directly. They didn't make themselves cheaper and they didn't use any existing muscle to force users over (they HAVE used their search dominance to expose themselves to other markets, but that isn't relevant to this discussion.) Not only that but they weren't even close to being the first search engine. People just liked them and they became popular; that's all there is to it. Bing can't even make that claim as Bing even offers money incentives to use their search engine in addition to making it the default search engine of their currently market dominating web browser, yet Bing still only manages to have a tiny (and money losing) search share compared to Google.
And so instead you see a bunch of lenses moving around which are considerably larger than the object they're trying to conceal, and furthermore would only work if all of them are oriented towards one particular viewer (viewers off to the side wouldn't be subject to this illusion.)
In other words, the Predator's plan of catching Arnie would fail pretty fast once his rear most lens bangs into a tree, knocking the whole thing out of alignment. Maybe Arnie doesn't see the predator, but he sees a strangely warped tree giving him plenty of warning which direction NOT to travel in in order to get to the choppa.
This. All they're really doing is using four lenses to move the light around the object, but it only really works if the object has to stay within a certain limited area. This technique would never work for something like Predator and certainly not for Romulan Warbirds.
The only time I've ever had a rental car was when somebody side swiped my 1996 salvaged title Lexus LS400 that had a lot of miles on it. The rental company would only give me a 2011 Dodge Sebring since the Lexus was only worth (blue book) about $3,000.
Although the interior looked nice as the car was basically brand new, overall it drove like a piece of shit compared to my (much cheaper) Lexus. If they would have thrown such a pitch at me, I would have happily told Dodge how much even their new cars suck hairy ass and balls compared to something Toyota made 15 years earlier.
time is practically unable to transmit HIV during sex.
No they are able to, just not likely. When it does happen, the results tend to be pretty bad as the virus that DOES spread tends to be resistant to multiple anti-HIV drugs, which means the recipient will be SOL when it comes to treatment and no amount of therapy will prevent the development of full blown aids.
IMO he probably still has traces of the virus within his body somewhere, but in such small quantities that it's undetectable. Other viruses are known to do this, such as chickenpox, which can resurface later in the form of shingles if the immune system ever weakens. Except HIV feeds off of the immune system itself, so it's likely he'll never see symptoms of it again.
However it would be unwise for him to do whatever he did to contract it in the first place as he could either spread his to somebody else or contract another variation of the disease that doesn't rely on the same receptor that he is now immune to (and yes, he does fit the "risk category" demographic if you haven't read his history.)
While I'm not a Gates fan, this whole thing looks like stupid urban rumor.
Looks like Bill's not too proud to revise history...
It seems to me that Bill isn't revising history here. He made the 64k to 640k comment in 1981, but never said anything about not needing more than that. Then infoworld pops this quote with no reference or anything. They certainly didn't interview him so where on earth did they pull that quote from? A lot of people have looked into it, including people from that page you sourced this from, yet nobody could find a proper source.
Which by the way, the page AC is referencing is here: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...
There used to be a series of commands you could send to a C64 to get the motor to do some fairly unnatural moves(such as slam down the write head and then eject, if I remember rightly. Its been a *long* time).
I don't think any of the C64 disk drives had a soft eject function. They either had the little spinny lever or the lip that you'd push in and up.
According to your link, nobody seems to know the cause of that.
That was basically just a long winded way of saying nothing at all. I mean really, you could have saved my time and yours by not replying, because you provided an equal benefit as if you just hadn't even responded at all.
And warming, while accurate, doesn't really define what the real problem is. Warming isn't the problem. It's what happens as a result of the warming that's problem. The additional energy into the climate system shifts the climate, which we, as a civilization, depend on. Also, warming gives the impression that every place on Earth is going to get warmer, which is not the case.
Is CO2 really the cause though? I mean we already know that during the age of dinosaurs macro scale life thrived with atmospheric CO2 some 20 times what it is right now.
Furthermore, is warming really the problem? Because again, macro scale life did quite well at the time.
Also, historically speaking, we haven't seen any periods where warming has caused mass famine and/or extinction, and/or wars. We've seen the cold cause these things, but not warmth. We have however seen where bad economic policy has caused mas famine, wars, etc. That said, I'm not sure that making economic changes in the interest of arresting climate change (which is where the political conflict arises) is a good idea.
IIRC only about 3% of the US population actively supported the revolution. The rest of them were either loyalists or just didn't give a shit.
Holy fuck you actually read that wall of text enough to respond to it? That takes some effort...I forgot what I was doing after the first period. My combat log looked like this:
sillybilly's Wall of Text hits YOU for 923,532,262,523 (Critical)
You die.
I live 40 miles from the American border.
Yeah, some 97.5% of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles of the US/Canada border. Some of them live south of it (Detroit is north of Canada, after all.)
You start with the framework, but beyond that intelligence is simply acquired after birth.
I remember him once commenting that if you don't make enough as a programmer because everything you write is free, then you ought to live for free in a college dorm like him.
Or that he believes not being able to code is a social problem in the same vein as not being able to read.
It's just things like that which make you wonder if he's even all there at times.
Serious question: Although I rarely troll myself, I rather do enjoy reading troll posts, and enjoy trolling if I can get the chance. That said, governments around the world are seriously considering making trolling a criminal offense; some already have. Have you thought about how this might affect 4chan? Or in the case where people post material that is illegal in their or even your hosted countr(ies) have they ever tried to make any kind of sanctions?