Wait, so if you don't fill up your hydrogen powered vehicle, where does the energy come from? Better yet, explain where the hydrogen will come from to power your vehicle. Don't become enveloped in the promise of hydrogen power. Without an efficient way of extracting hydrogen that doesn't use fossil fuels as the underlying energy source for the extraction, the promise of hydrogen power is a sham. If the Bush administration says that hydrogen fuel will be our savior, perhaps that's a clue that you should educate yourself on where such a fuel would come from. Putting money into hydrogen is wasteful without clean sources of energy to make extract the hydrogen. You might as well just keep burning oil because hydrogen extracted by a process utilizing fossil fuel will only end up costing you more money.
Slashdot needs a basic physics primer that explains such concepts as "energy" and the laws of thermodynamics.
It may be cool, but it's certainly not new. BeOS did this in 1998.
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
By attempting to shift the burden of proof onto others you implicitly declare your position to be correct. By your own declaration you have no right to comment due to the lack of proof provided.
My original comment still stands. Opinions, including my own, are worthless since they are just that, opinions. You, however, seem convinced that yours is right. In doing so, I hope you did not succeed in convincing anyone that they should not seek appropriate help.
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Why did you take the time to reply if you weren't going to add anything new? Provide supporting evidence to your position or shut up. That's the problem with online message boards these days, everyone thinks their opinion is gospel and that it should be obvious that you're right.
You can already convert any document to PDF format from any application running on any OS that supports samba printers. Simply setup a samba printer, set the print command to be ps2pdf, then lie and say that the printer is really a post script printer (just pick any PS printer that has a driver that ships with Windows). Install the printer under windows and boom, you've got instant PDFs from any application.
If anyone is interested I can post my samba config file once I get a chance to access the box its sitting on.
So you're saying it would be alright for property owners who may or may not even own a computer, and who may be perfectly happy with dial-up for email, to be forced to support your bandwidth needs?...and don't even get me started on what kind of service you should expect out of an entrenched government agency.
I will disagree with this post also, the whole thing in fact. If Microsoft crumbled a la Enron, a huge need for office applications and operating systems on the PC will arise. This will leave everyone with one of two choices: A) Replace every PC with a Mac or B) Keep existing PC hardware investments and switch operating systems as Windows decays due to lack of updates and dwindling support. With option A, we'd at least get a nice platform, with B however (and I believe B would be the more likely choice), we would suddenly either have incredible penetration of Linux into corporate desktops or we'd have a surge in competition among OS vendors. As for the newly created demand for alternative office suites, new companies will spring up to fill the demand. Even if OpenOffice.org is widely adopted after Microsoft crumbles, someone will still have to support it, so either way people decide to go, be it commercial or free, new business oppurtunities will arise and hence more oppurtunities to create wealth where it was once locked up by a mega corp. In other words, no, the collapse of Microsoft would not kill the economy (although I'm certain it would tank the stock market for some time). Keep in mind that the stock market is not the same as the economy, and that only 50% of American's even own stock.
As for your proposal to prop up companies in the same league as Enron and WorldCom, please, the stock market is in the crap hole right now because all the "wealth" created in the 90s wasn't real. First everyone panics, then the market readjusts to where it should have been the whole freaking time had folks like Ebbers and Kenneth Lay not been having a cookout. I'm hoping for another 50 years here at a minimum, and I don't want to deal with the after-effects of "propping up" crooks for the sake of the precious stock market. Those corporations need to suffer as an example and those responsible need to be convicted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Yes, I do realize this will hurt some people in the short-run. Personally, I believe we ought to strip higher up officials of said companies who were involved in the cookout of their wealth and distribute it to the employees they stole it from. Unfortunately, our government is too entangled with business to exact such harsh punishment (we can only hope for a vigilante judge to push the limits of sentencing and eschew fears of impeachment).
Oh, and don't tell me that the fall of Microsoft would destroy much personal wealth that is currently held in stocks. If Microsoft crumbles tomorrow then that wealth was never real, but was only created as part of a bubble. I would love to hear about why I'm wrong, if you don't mind. Assuming, of course, that you still believe that you are right.
I believe you're knocking XFree86 here, and not Linux. But you're right, as Linux user and I can attest that XFree86 sucks when it comes to driver stability.
FWIW, I've found that dropping out of KDE (since you mentioned KDE, I assume you're running it) and into TWM for running games solves all of my stability problems. Quake3 will *always* lock up within 10 min. while KDE is running, but I can play for hours under TWM with no problem at all.
Really? Could you please explain to those of us who are quite obviously in the dark how not having red hot competition in the OS and office suite market is helping the US economy? There could be many more jobs out there for programmers right now if there were, for example, 4 worthy competitors to NT in widespread use. This recession started as a slump in business spending, a slump that would have definately been less pronounced had there been four competing companies fighting tooth and nail to stay alive in a ruthless market for operating system software. Want an example: see ATI vs. nVidia, neither can afford to lose and neither will ever win (hopefully).
We shouldn't resign ourself to the current status quo when things can be changed for the better right now.
Man I miss the NES days. Zelda, ExciteBike, throwing your controller through a window because you just fucked up the Top Gun carrier landing for the 750th time.
Hence the reason you should have been playing AfterBurner.
I was replying to the following: So that's why MS say they can't remove MSIE - because IExplore.exe on your hard drive is just the glue holding together a bunch of components that are provided by the OS and available to any application.. Every time I don't include *exactly* what I'm replying to, people complain that I'm not replying to anything, not to mention the fact that the post I replied to didn't pose any questions, so I'm not realy sure how I can misunderstand what is being asked when nothign was asked. I was trying to point out that Microsoft's definition of Internet Explorer is overly broad and the post I responded too was seemingly accepting Microsoft's position. The states, you say, want "all pieces or IE out". Saying that Microsoft can't do it because IE uses TCP/IP is about as dumb as saying Microsoft can't take IE out because it relies on the CreateWindow API and therefore that must also be yanked out.
In other words, the original poster's argument that IE can't be removed because it holds components together is ridiculous. None of the components sit in iexplore.exe. This is what I said in my post -- hopefully I said it this time in a way that/everyone/ can understand.
I'm not really sure why I even need to reply...my post is pretty self explanatory. Heck, I've typed this much, may as well post it.
Unfortunately, they polluted everyone's thinking and now people insist on naming their KDE software with Ks. Of course, if someone writes something it's their right to name it Stinky Dog Poop if they want. In fact, that might be preferable to the "K" thing. I've seriously thought of writing a script that will tr/[kK]/[cC]/ the name of every program and every reference to those programs.
IE isn't glue holding anything together, IE is a browser that utilizes the various components and services provided by Windows. MS says they can't remove IE because they don't want to. They could just as easily leave in the html renderer, the url handling, and everything else IE relies on and remove IE itself. It'd be like removing NeoPlanet. Unfortunately, Microsoft believes that all those components IE makes use of are part of IE and not really components of Windows.
Of course, the problem with this discussion is that we're putting any kind of faith in the researchers to begin with. How did this website get the results of this 'research' to begin with? Someone must have given it to them. Now, why would a group of researches completely skip the process of peer review and simply 'leak' their results straight to the media? Nowhere in the article did I see a mention of what respectable journals this had been published in, only a brief mention that the results would be announced at a certain convention. This isn't good research until it's verfied and published.
Don't buy Cat5 from a computer store, buy it from a hardware store. Lowes has cat5e for $0.9/foot (or $0.7/foot if you buy the whole box). Buy a cheap crimper and sell short lengths of crimped cables to people at prices slightly lower than the Overpriced Inc. (err, Belkin;) ) cables. Get what you need, and make a tidy profit:).
Starcraft, Diablo 2, and WarCraft 3 (based on my experiances with the beta) have been simply TERRIBLE games. Buggy, unbalanced, uninteresting, lacking strategic or tactical depth (in the cases of StarCraft and WC3), using cheap workarounds to fix fundimental game flaws (i.e. Hey, if we let them only select a limited # of units at once, noone can rush right? right?), and always ALWAYS falling far short of the grand feature-scapes originally planned for them.
How can you say StarCraft is unbalanced? StarCraft is nearly perfectly balanced. If you believe StarCraft to be unbalanced, then you don't know the units well enough. Here's an example I've seen: the siege tanks are far too powerful and the range is too long. Counter: take three zealots up against a siege tank and see how long it lasts...siege tanks are unable to effectively defend against melee attacks. Many people, unfortunately, fall into the trap of believing they need something big to take out something else big. Also, only being able to select a certain number of units isn't a problem in starcraft. i.e. selecting a large number of zealots and making them attack one thing is counterproductive, stupid, and a really good way to waste resources. Starcraft emphasizes micromanagement of units. In the case of the zerg (a race who can only effectively be used in masses) the limit of simultaneous selection is set high enough to allow the player to select enough zerg to do damage, and low enough to force the player to manage several smaller groupings of zerg (which is what you'd want even if there were no selection limit, otherwise you'd be wasting resources on units that weren't even getting an attack in before getting killed).
Slashdot Mirror
See my reply to MasonMcD, since both of you say approximately the same thing.
Wait, so if you don't fill up your hydrogen powered vehicle, where does the energy come from? Better yet, explain where the hydrogen will come from to power your vehicle. Don't become enveloped in the promise of hydrogen power. Without an efficient way of extracting hydrogen that doesn't use fossil fuels as the underlying energy source for the extraction, the promise of hydrogen power is a sham. If the Bush administration says that hydrogen fuel will be our savior, perhaps that's a clue that you should educate yourself on where such a fuel would come from. Putting money into hydrogen is wasteful without clean sources of energy to make extract the hydrogen. You might as well just keep burning oil because hydrogen extracted by a process utilizing fossil fuel will only end up costing you more money.
Slashdot needs a basic physics primer that explains such concepts as "energy" and the laws of thermodynamics.
It may be cool, but it's certainly not new. BeOS did this in 1998.
By attempting to shift the burden of proof onto others you implicitly declare your position to be correct. By your own declaration you have no right to comment due to the lack of proof provided.
My original comment still stands. Opinions, including my own, are worthless since they are just that, opinions. You, however, seem convinced that yours is right. In doing so, I hope you did not succeed in convincing anyone that they should not seek appropriate help.
Why did you take the time to reply if you weren't going to add anything new? Provide supporting evidence to your position or shut up. That's the problem with online message boards these days, everyone thinks their opinion is gospel and that it should be obvious that you're right.
You can already convert any document to PDF format from any application running on any OS that supports samba printers. Simply setup a samba printer, set the print command to be ps2pdf, then lie and say that the printer is really a post script printer (just pick any PS printer that has a driver that ships with Windows). Install the printer under windows and boom, you've got instant PDFs from any application.
If anyone is interested I can post my samba config file once I get a chance to access the box its sitting on.
But seriously, this wireless electricity must p*ss off those projects trying to provide internet connectivity via power lines...
In other news, geeks everywhere begin adopting the Linus Torvalds Naughty Word Spelling Convention.
IANAL, but as far as I know, if you can't be reasonably expected to understand what you're agreeing to, then you can't be held liable for it.
Is there any truth to that?
Not to mention that the current version seems to have a mysterious problem with randomly melting databases.
I'm bookmarking this story so next time my database melts I can come here for a quick laugh before going off to repair it.
By the same token, why do you have a defective CD-ROM drive that handles non-standard discs?
So you're saying it would be alright for property owners who may or may not even own a computer, and who may be perfectly happy with dial-up for email, to be forced to support your bandwidth needs? ...and don't even get me started on what kind of service you should expect out of an entrenched government agency.
That's better than my 26kbps...and don't even try to use a WinModem :).
I will disagree with this post also, the whole thing in fact. If Microsoft crumbled a la Enron, a huge need for office applications and operating systems on the PC will arise. This will leave everyone with one of two choices: A) Replace every PC with a Mac or B) Keep existing PC hardware investments and switch operating systems as Windows decays due to lack of updates and dwindling support. With option A, we'd at least get a nice platform, with B however (and I believe B would be the more likely choice), we would suddenly either have incredible penetration of Linux into corporate desktops or we'd have a surge in competition among OS vendors. As for the newly created demand for alternative office suites, new companies will spring up to fill the demand. Even if OpenOffice.org is widely adopted after Microsoft crumbles, someone will still have to support it, so either way people decide to go, be it commercial or free, new business oppurtunities will arise and hence more oppurtunities to create wealth where it was once locked up by a mega corp. In other words, no, the collapse of Microsoft would not kill the economy (although I'm certain it would tank the stock market for some time). Keep in mind that the stock market is not the same as the economy, and that only 50% of American's even own stock.
As for your proposal to prop up companies in the same league as Enron and WorldCom, please, the stock market is in the crap hole right now because all the "wealth" created in the 90s wasn't real. First everyone panics, then the market readjusts to where it should have been the whole freaking time had folks like Ebbers and Kenneth Lay not been having a cookout. I'm hoping for another 50 years here at a minimum, and I don't want to deal with the after-effects of "propping up" crooks for the sake of the precious stock market. Those corporations need to suffer as an example and those responsible need to be convicted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Yes, I do realize this will hurt some people in the short-run. Personally, I believe we ought to strip higher up officials of said companies who were involved in the cookout of their wealth and distribute it to the employees they stole it from. Unfortunately, our government is too entangled with business to exact such harsh punishment (we can only hope for a vigilante judge to push the limits of sentencing and eschew fears of impeachment).
Oh, and don't tell me that the fall of Microsoft would destroy much personal wealth that is currently held in stocks. If Microsoft crumbles tomorrow then that wealth was never real, but was only created as part of a bubble. I would love to hear about why I'm wrong, if you don't mind. Assuming, of course, that you still believe that you are right.
I believe you're knocking XFree86 here, and not Linux. But you're right, as Linux user and I can attest that XFree86 sucks when it comes to driver stability.
FWIW, I've found that dropping out of KDE (since you mentioned KDE, I assume you're running it) and into TWM for running games solves all of my stability problems. Quake3 will *always* lock up within 10 min. while KDE is running, but I can play for hours under TWM with no problem at all.
Really? Could you please explain to those of us who are quite obviously in the dark how not having red hot competition in the OS and office suite market is helping the US economy? There could be many more jobs out there for programmers right now if there were, for example, 4 worthy competitors to NT in widespread use. This recession started as a slump in business spending, a slump that would have definately been less pronounced had there been four competing companies fighting tooth and nail to stay alive in a ruthless market for operating system software. Want an example: see ATI vs. nVidia, neither can afford to lose and neither will ever win (hopefully).
We shouldn't resign ourself to the current status quo when things can be changed for the better right now.
Man I miss the NES days. Zelda, ExciteBike, throwing your controller through a window because you just fucked up the Top Gun carrier landing for the 750th time.
Hence the reason you should have been playing AfterBurner.
Great, except for that fact that I spend 90% of my time in Linux doing development.
I was replying to the following: So that's why MS say they can't remove MSIE - because IExplore.exe on your hard drive is just the glue holding together a bunch of components that are provided by the OS and available to any application.. Every time I don't include *exactly* what I'm replying to, people complain that I'm not replying to anything, not to mention the fact that the post I replied to didn't pose any questions, so I'm not realy sure how I can misunderstand what is being asked when nothign was asked. I was trying to point out that Microsoft's definition of Internet Explorer is overly broad and the post I responded too was seemingly accepting Microsoft's position. The states, you say, want "all pieces or IE out". Saying that Microsoft can't do it because IE uses TCP/IP is about as dumb as saying Microsoft can't take IE out because it relies on the CreateWindow API and therefore that must also be yanked out.
/everyone/ can understand.
In other words, the original poster's argument that IE can't be removed because it holds components together is ridiculous. None of the components sit in iexplore.exe. This is what I said in my post -- hopefully I said it this time in a way that
I'm not really sure why I even need to reply...my post is pretty self explanatory. Heck, I've typed this much, may as well post it.
Unfortunately, they polluted everyone's thinking and now people insist on naming their KDE software with Ks. Of course, if someone writes something it's their right to name it Stinky Dog Poop if they want. In fact, that might be preferable to the "K" thing. I've seriously thought of writing a script that will tr/[kK]/[cC]/ the name of every program and every reference to those programs.
Maybe I'm just need mental help.
IE isn't glue holding anything together, IE is a browser that utilizes the various components and services provided by Windows. MS says they can't remove IE because they don't want to. They could just as easily leave in the html renderer, the url handling, and everything else IE relies on and remove IE itself. It'd be like removing NeoPlanet. Unfortunately, Microsoft believes that all those components IE makes use of are part of IE and not really components of Windows.
Of course, the problem with this discussion is that we're putting any kind of faith in the researchers to begin with. How did this website get the results of this 'research' to begin with? Someone must have given it to them. Now, why would a group of researches completely skip the process of peer review and simply 'leak' their results straight to the media? Nowhere in the article did I see a mention of what respectable journals this had been published in, only a brief mention that the results would be announced at a certain convention. This isn't good research until it's verfied and published.
Don't buy Cat5 from a computer store, buy it from a hardware store. Lowes has cat5e for $0.9/foot (or $0.7/foot if you buy the whole box). Buy a cheap crimper and sell short lengths of crimped cables to people at prices slightly lower than the Overpriced Inc. (err, Belkin ;) ) cables. Get what you need, and make a tidy profit :).
I can think of one...how about dumping that $20 billion plus the $70 billion that the project will go over-budget into finding a cure.
nt
Starcraft, Diablo 2, and WarCraft 3 (based on my experiances with the beta) have been simply TERRIBLE games. Buggy, unbalanced, uninteresting, lacking strategic or tactical depth (in the cases of StarCraft and WC3), using cheap workarounds to fix fundimental game flaws (i.e. Hey, if we let them only select a limited # of units at once, noone can rush right? right?), and always ALWAYS falling far short of the grand feature-scapes originally planned for them.
:-).
How can you say StarCraft is unbalanced? StarCraft is nearly perfectly balanced. If you believe StarCraft to be unbalanced, then you don't know the units well enough. Here's an example I've seen: the siege tanks are far too powerful and the range is too long. Counter: take three zealots up against a siege tank and see how long it lasts...siege tanks are unable to effectively defend against melee attacks. Many people, unfortunately, fall into the trap of believing they need something big to take out something else big. Also, only being able to select a certain number of units isn't a problem in starcraft. i.e. selecting a large number of zealots and making them attack one thing is counterproductive, stupid, and a really good way to waste resources. Starcraft emphasizes micromanagement of units. In the case of the zerg (a race who can only effectively be used in masses) the limit of simultaneous selection is set high enough to allow the player to select enough zerg to do damage, and low enough to force the player to manage several smaller groupings of zerg (which is what you'd want even if there were no selection limit, otherwise you'd be wasting resources on units that weren't even getting an attack in before getting killed).
You should play more StarCraft