If you can raise yourself up to that height without use of propellant, just let go. coast down at an angle, plus use your thrusters THEN and you'll get up to speed a lot faster and with less propellant than if you started straight from the ground.
So no, they're not on crack. You're getting esentially free energy, even if you only want to look at it in the form of Ep=mgh
you simply drop. you'll reach 17,000mph in no time (you drop on an angle that is... plus you use your boosters once you're that high up to get you to that speed.) The combination of the two will give you all the speed you need with much less propellant.
drives will heat up due to the friction of the platters moving through the air
Would it be viable to place the platters in a vacuum then? Can't be very hard to do, and if this would help to cut down on the resistance that would not only cut down on heat but also power used.
Well, not so neccessarily... those IBM drives have their heads parked off the surface of the disk when powered off so you can shake'em around all that you like and won't damage the surface of the disk. I like that and that was one of the reasons why I sprung the extra for the drive.
By far the most common cause of drive failure is vibration or movement of the case while the drive is running
I don't think so. I was told firsthand by a tech that by far the most common reason was due to overclocking. Don't forget that running that wonderful 1.4GHz processor at 1.624GHz also overclocks your PCI bus by 4.5MHz. Doesn't sound like much? Well that's 14% above spec. After a while, and with the heat that these drives generate anyways, it's pretty easy to toast your electronics by doing that.
Mind you, that was for hard drive failures in general, I don't know about IBM drive failure reasons.
I've also had good support with both western digital and maxtor, but I've had about 3 drives of each company fail on me in the past 3 years. Argh.
And, may I ask, how do you have 5 IDE drives on a single raid? You gotta be using software raid, no?
I want to do a 3+1 raid 5 with 40GB drives that I have, but I'd be forced to do it in software since the money for the card is equal to just buying an extra 2 40GB drives to raid 0+1 it.
But yeah, I backup frequently. And would'nt'cha know it... I was lazy and didn't do backups in about a month, and the drive toasted itself. I'm still trying to peice it back together now.
OTOH, I've had 2x40 + 2x20 in a tower case running nonstop for 180+ days now without so much as a hiccup. Let's hope they stay that way until I can get there to raid 5'em
I bought a 2x1x6x HP SureStore burner when they first came out and used it happily for about a year, at which point it died the common degraded laser death. I was greeted frendily at my first request for an RMA, and was advanced shipped a drive within a week. That drive worked well for about 2 months until it died as well. I again contacted tech support and got another RMA drive, but this one took 2 weeks to get to me, and the replacement was DOA. Well, I should say that it couldn't burn at all, but it could read fine (all of the drives were "refurb" BTW), the error codes were "critical hardware failure". So I phone them back, and this time I tell them exactly what the problem was and expressed my concern. Their reply? "Well sir, normally when you get those serious error codes we'd ask you to ship it back in, but since you just got it from us it must be a configuration problem on your end."
Argh. I know what I'm doing here buddy....
After spending a week with tech support trying to convince them to let me return the drive, I wrote a letter to the head of the customer service department, and CC'd it to the VP of (?) and a few other people, basically telling them that I'm tired of using their defective r(efur)ubbished products and that I wanted a brand new burner along with 20 disks for the ones that I wasted. (it was much more diplomatically worded than that). I basically got a phone call the next day saying "OK, where would you like us to ship the new drive?" They didn't replace the disks, but I got a 4x2x20x drive back in return, which needless to say was much better than the one that I was using, and it hasn't failed yet. So they redeemed a bit of respect in my eye, but I still don't trust their products very much =(.
can someone tell me why they're not interested in using balloons at all for reusable launch vehicles? It would make far too much sense to me since it's essentially free and lightweight, and a lot LESS expensive than dumping humungous feul tanks into the ocean after every launch. You can get up very high, ditch the balloon, then use attached rockets to fill you the rest of the way. You could even use reusable balloons with hot helium instead in case you need to lift too much weight for just hot air to raise.
I'm in the process right now of attempting to restore my IBM 40GB 5400RPM drive using a 75GXp 40GB drive to mirror. The nice thing about these IBM drives is that, apparently, once the drive shuts down the heads are lifted from the surface of the drive, rendering it "impossible" (according to the info page) to damage the surface of the disk while in transit.
Well, I have been using the drive for 4 months and taking it back/forth every day in a caddy (yeah yeah) and it finally died with many grinding noises and the occasional screetchy one. Well it finally barfed and toasted about 0.2% of the surface of the disk (in random places), but just enough to prevent 2K/XP from mounting the disk. I made a recording of the noises that the drive made, I'd be interested to hear yours to see if they're the same.
In any case, this problem isn't limited to IBM. I've had about 4 HD failures in the past 3 years personally of IBM/WD/Maxtor and since I also run a small computer shop I've seen about a dozen more in the same time period. I remember 5 years ago when HDs lasted forever.
OTOH, My server at home is running 2x40GB WD + 2x30GB Maxtor and has been up and running without a reboot for 183 days now (running Windows 2000 I might add). So I guess "yah payz yah money, yah takz ya chancez."
But this guy doesn't appear to know what he's talking about... He's comparing apples to oranges here... No, apples to watermelons... Now I'm not all that up to speed on linux pipes, but from what I can tell they are completely different from windows pipes. At least from windows named bi-directional pipes, which is what he tested them against. (And lets completely forget here for a second that he works for IBM, which has all but pronounced vendetta on Microsoft... No possible bias there.)
Under windows, there are many things the he "neglected" to notice:
pipes in Windows have ACLs (access control lists).
There are two types of pipes: Anonymous pipes and named pipes. Anonymous pipes require less overhead than named pipes, but offer limited services. He "neglected" to test anonymous pipes on Windows platforms (which BTW are faster).
Windows Named pipes can be used to provide communication between processes on the same computer or between processes on different computers across a network.
Windows XP can provide encryption for pipes, which might explain the drastically lower rates. Since XP is based on the same kernel as Windows 2000 there's obviously some additional setting that is on by default now that is causing the decreased rates.
Also:
the term pipe server refers to a process that creates a named pipe, and the term pipe client refers to a process that connects to an instance of a named pipe. This is why you have one method to Create the pipe, and one to Open it. BTW -- the Opening method is a universal resource opening method on windows PCs.
You can go here if you want to know more about pipes on windows.
AND
I also tried his programs, and you don't need that mystical +24 to get it to work. I don't know why he needed it. Perhaps because he was using some old or wierd cl? I'd also suggest that he try to compile it with MSVC (unless he got the cl.exe from there) as I would bet that would make it faster as well.
So, from what I read he basically said "Well, I'm gonna compare this thingy called a 'pipe' over here on windows to this really old and simple 'pipe' thingy over here on linux" without checking to see what was actually under the hoods of the two beasts he was comparing.
Nipples? It was the whole breasts man... They were downright perky
and an engine that just made warp 1
We weren't actually told how fast it went, but assumidly faster than warp 1 (since that's just the speed of light). But still, it's been like 50 years or something since the first warp flight, you'd think that they could get some engine up and running.
I still don't like the hull plating going off line
It wasn't the hull plating, it was the polarization of the hull plating. They used polatization (by electromagnetic fields) to help repel particle weapons, and that's easy to go offline =)
putting the onus on sysadmins to remove it from that state
First it's all Microsoft's fault because IIS was shipped in an "easy to use state" which made it insecure. Now you're reversing the tables and saying that the "onus" is on the sysadmins to put it into a less secure state. Will you guys ever be happy?
It looks like Microsoft may be trying to do the right thing from a security standpoint, at least on paper.
So, lemmy get this straight.... Instead of praising them for finally doing what you've been asking all along, you give hesitant "well now the onus is on the sysadmin" and "may be trying to do... at least on paper" comments... What exactly will make you happy? (besides MS rolling over and playing dead).
what the hell is it with everybody assuming that if you drop it or slip you'll explode?!!?
Does anyone out there own a butane lighter? Woah. Bet you're scared of walking around with those things as well. and those are in plastic cases. I'll bet that you've screwed around with those, making flamethrowers and I'll bet that you've dropped them plenty of times, perhaps even whipped them at things. this isn't much different people.
Have you ever dropped an actual BBQ propane tank? Go ahead. You're not going to do much damage. Those things are designed to be stable.
And these things have a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of methane in a very thick tank (relatively speaking). You'd need to take a hammer and a nail to these things in order to pierce them. There is no danger from any sort of forseen rational usage. And EVEN IF you manage to break the tank, the gas will release VERY quickly. There's little to no risk of any sort of damage.
"Stupid Idea"?? Did you bother to read the article?
What happens when your new cellphone/PDA/wireless net/wristtop starts sucking back 20x the power that your cellphone does? You want to be recharging your device once every 30 minutes?
Devices are getting a lot more integrated and needing to suck back far more juice. This is more of a proof of concept, soonafter laptops will start using this device as well, and then from there to even more complicated devices. Battery technology is what is holding us back from the really cool stuff that we've been waiting for. Technology is there, it's just that it can't be powered. This is a fantastic step in the right direction.
right, but when you have the tech to build the ship and a warp drive that can do warp, then you build that, so that even if the vulcans are holding you back, you can still get your ship on the road, so to speak. I don't see why holding back warp drive information would keep you from building the ship itself that you already have an engine for. And by the sounds of it, they vulcans dragged this out for 10 years or so. You'd think that you'd just build your ship with the warp drive after the first year or so of them dragging their feet.
Unless you die on Zha'ha'duum (or however it's spelled).
Funny thing about that, it's spelt Z'ha'dum even though it's pronounced "zah-ha-doom"... go figure.
The difference was that the event was planned from the very beginning of the show
And it had a damned good plot.
and it had damned good plot continuity.
and it had damned good graphics.
and it had damned good characters.
and it had damned good character development.
and it had realistic plots.
and it had realistic tech.
(and I can go on) =)
Do you have any idea where one can get a hold of Farscape episodes? I got a few on DVD, but I haven't been able to find many others and I haven't been able to watch past the first 9 episodes =(.
Earth, knowing that the warp core only hits warp 5?
The core currently only goes up to warp 5, but don't forget that there are races that have much more advanced warpdrives right now, and considering how earth-to-cronos is like 4 days or something (well, wait, let's not work out the math of that one) I don't think that it will be a limitation in how far they can travel.
But they'll probably have warps higher than 5 by the end of the first season, no doubt. The first season will probably have a lot of newish technologies/tweaks/new ways of trying things going on. That's one of the benefits of already having those technologies laid out, you just have to plan how to get there.
You know, a thought just occurred to me. Why would Bakula's Dad not have lived to see his drive hit warp? If Cochran already had a warp drive then there is no reason to see why Bacula's drive couldn't at least do warp before he died, if not warp 5.
All that I can see it doing is punishing the law abiding soft core porn sites
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to be displaying pornography to minors, regardless of where you are doing it? Thus the online sites are not law abiding if they are not doing at least some sort of check to try to ensure that you're of age, and just saying "by clicking here you verify that you're of age" doesn't really count.
But yes, kids can find porn... Hell, just drop down to alt.binaries.multimedia.* and pick yourself up just about anything from porn to movies to tv shows.
Well interesting call, but I saw Final Fantasy, and although it was impressive, it certainly was far from real. However give the technology another 5 to 10 years and you can probably get completely realistic looking CG. Hmm... good point. My guess would be however that if you were charged, the ownus would be upon yourself to proove that it was a CG generated image and not a real one.
We need a new moderation category, try asinine Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
Man, you think that my post was asinine when yours was just plain stupid.
Answer me this, genious : why would I, as a company, need to contract the services of a 3rd party to maintain a list specifically for people who want to receive my products? Especially when I already have this? It's called a mailing list.
These 3rd party mass marketers only survive because they have a list of 10 million email addresses and can charge to mass broadcast out to them. If you are limited to opt-in lists, then it's trivial to maintain your own mailing list, or use any of the free mailing list services that are already on the internet.
Thus these marketing companies will cease to exist.
duh!
It's called direct marketing and it works.
Yes, it works because in those instances the task of performing the distrobution is difficult. I worked for a fax broadcasting company and we broadcasted out solicited faxes to travel agencies. Our customers did not have the resources to send out 10,000 faxes in one night, and even if they did, because of our bulk LD rates, we could do it for cheaper than they could.
Or printing of brochures and mailing them out, this is not an easy task for a company of 20 people.
However broadcasting emails is trivial for anyone who is knowledgeable about computers in the first place, and since the vast majority of companies have someone to handle their IT, this becomes a non-issue. And as I already said, there are numerous free options on the internet to handle your own mailing lists anyways.
And before you start going on about bandwidth, the act of sending the message from your side is a mere 30 bytes or so per email address (actually it's "RCPT TO " IIRC). And if you manage to have 10,000 people who are interested in your product then that's not a very large deal at all.
Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
refresh my memory, who wasn't using their head? At least have the decency in the future to not act like an ass and voice your disagreements in a civil way.
Manufacturers already have to pay a licensing fee per unit to make DVD players. An open source system can't keep track of the number of units, and it doesn't have the money to pay a license fee. They are also supposed to keep the inner workings secret, which open source is also incapable of. These are what made the DeCSS software illegal. Since this law allows the industry to set up the "standard," we may end up with a similar plan for this law.
Are you saying that you will be required to pay a licensing fee in order to use "approved" technologies? I'm not so sure that you will... Actually I wasn't aware that you have to pay royalties on DVD, I was under the impression that it was an open standard.
"Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, Launch browser windows in a separate process"
I don't have that option. I do have that under explorer as tools, folder options, view, advanced settings, launch folder windows in a seperate process.
(I mean, what the bleep is a "friendly" URL or error message?)
right click, choose "what is this?", and it will explain it to you.
I've had the problem happen both with windows launched by right-clicking and clicking "Open in new window" and with windows launched by calling iexplore.exe via the Start button menu.
right-click and "open in new window" opens in the same process, running another iexplore.exe creates a new process.
if a window goes berserk or crashes or you kill the process, it will only kill all of the windows that were launched from that process... your other iexplore windows will be fine and unharmed.
and unless you're using windows 9x then you can't kill the system by having popup hell with iexplore windows.
I do hope that there is a special circle of eternal torment for whoever thought it was a smart idea to give the file manager and the browser the same name
Huh?
"Internet Explorer" and "Explorer" is not that small of a difference, and what does it matter? They're two seperate names. I don't understand your beef.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all!
If you can raise yourself up to that height without use of propellant, just let go. coast down at an angle, plus use your thrusters THEN and you'll get up to speed a lot faster and with less propellant than if you started straight from the ground.
So no, they're not on crack. You're getting esentially free energy, even if you only want to look at it in the form of Ep=mgh
that's a non starter.
you simply drop. you'll reach 17,000mph in no time (you drop on an angle that is... plus you use your boosters once you're that high up to get you to that speed.) The combination of the two will give you all the speed you need with much less propellant.
drives will heat up due to the friction of the platters moving through the air
Would it be viable to place the platters in a vacuum then? Can't be very hard to do, and if this would help to cut down on the resistance that would not only cut down on heat but also power used.
Bad handling is DEFINITELY an issue
Well, not so neccessarily... those IBM drives have their heads parked off the surface of the disk when powered off so you can shake'em around all that you like and won't damage the surface of the disk. I like that and that was one of the reasons why I sprung the extra for the drive.
By far the most common cause of drive failure is vibration or movement of the case while the drive is running
I don't think so. I was told firsthand by a tech that by far the most common reason was due to overclocking. Don't forget that running that wonderful 1.4GHz processor at 1.624GHz also overclocks your PCI bus by 4.5MHz. Doesn't sound like much? Well that's 14% above spec. After a while, and with the heat that these drives generate anyways, it's pretty easy to toast your electronics by doing that.
Mind you, that was for hard drive failures in general, I don't know about IBM drive failure reasons.
I've also had good support with both western digital and maxtor, but I've had about 3 drives of each company fail on me in the past 3 years. Argh.
what do you use for your raid 5?
And, may I ask, how do you have 5 IDE drives on a single raid? You gotta be using software raid, no?
I want to do a 3+1 raid 5 with 40GB drives that I have, but I'd be forced to do it in software since the money for the card is equal to just buying an extra 2 40GB drives to raid 0+1 it.
But yeah, I backup frequently. And would'nt'cha know it... I was lazy and didn't do backups in about a month, and the drive toasted itself. I'm still trying to peice it back together now.
OTOH, I've had 2x40 + 2x20 in a tower case running nonstop for 180+ days now without so much as a hiccup. Let's hope they stay that way until I can get there to raid 5'em
I bought a 2x1x6x HP SureStore burner when they first came out and used it happily for about a year, at which point it died the common degraded laser death. I was greeted frendily at my first request for an RMA, and was advanced shipped a drive within a week. That drive worked well for about 2 months until it died as well. I again contacted tech support and got another RMA drive, but this one took 2 weeks to get to me, and the replacement was DOA. Well, I should say that it couldn't burn at all, but it could read fine (all of the drives were "refurb" BTW), the error codes were "critical hardware failure". So I phone them back, and this time I tell them exactly what the problem was and expressed my concern. Their reply? "Well sir, normally when you get those serious error codes we'd ask you to ship it back in, but since you just got it from us it must be a configuration problem on your end."
Argh. I know what I'm doing here buddy....
After spending a week with tech support trying to convince them to let me return the drive, I wrote a letter to the head of the customer service department, and CC'd it to the VP of (?) and a few other people, basically telling them that I'm tired of using their defective r(efur)ubbished products and that I wanted a brand new burner along with 20 disks for the ones that I wasted. (it was much more diplomatically worded than that). I basically got a phone call the next day saying "OK, where would you like us to ship the new drive?" They didn't replace the disks, but I got a 4x2x20x drive back in return, which needless to say was much better than the one that I was using, and it hasn't failed yet. So they redeemed a bit of respect in my eye, but I still don't trust their products very much =(.
can someone tell me why they're not interested in using balloons at all for reusable launch vehicles? It would make far too much sense to me since it's essentially free and lightweight, and a lot LESS expensive than dumping humungous feul tanks into the ocean after every launch. You can get up very high, ditch the balloon, then use attached rockets to fill you the rest of the way. You could even use reusable balloons with hot helium instead in case you need to lift too much weight for just hot air to raise.
Maxtor has regained my respect for top brand
Well, I won't touch them because I've had 3 dead drives personally in 3 years.
Then again, I've also had WD drives die as well as IBM drives now, so I don't know who to trust.
I'm in the process right now of attempting to restore my IBM 40GB 5400RPM drive using a 75GXp 40GB drive to mirror. The nice thing about these IBM drives is that, apparently, once the drive shuts down the heads are lifted from the surface of the drive, rendering it "impossible" (according to the info page) to damage the surface of the disk while in transit.
Well, I have been using the drive for 4 months and taking it back/forth every day in a caddy (yeah yeah) and it finally died with many grinding noises and the occasional screetchy one. Well it finally barfed and toasted about 0.2% of the surface of the disk (in random places), but just enough to prevent 2K/XP from mounting the disk. I made a recording of the noises that the drive made, I'd be interested to hear yours to see if they're the same.
In any case, this problem isn't limited to IBM. I've had about 4 HD failures in the past 3 years personally of IBM/WD/Maxtor and since I also run a small computer shop I've seen about a dozen more in the same time period. I remember 5 years ago when HDs lasted forever.
OTOH, My server at home is running 2x40GB WD + 2x30GB Maxtor and has been up and running without a reboot for 183 days now (running Windows 2000 I might add). So I guess "yah payz yah money, yah takz ya chancez."
Under windows, there are many things the he "neglected" to notice:
Also:
the term pipe server refers to a process that creates a named pipe, and the term pipe client refers to a process that connects to an instance of a named pipe. This is why you have one method to Create the pipe, and one to Open it. BTW -- the Opening method is a universal resource opening method on windows PCs.
You can go here if you want to know more about pipes on windows.
AND
I also tried his programs, and you don't need that mystical +24 to get it to work. I don't know why he needed it. Perhaps because he was using some old or wierd cl? I'd also suggest that he try to compile it with MSVC (unless he got the cl.exe from there) as I would bet that would make it faster as well.
So, from what I read he basically said "Well, I'm gonna compare this thingy called a 'pipe' over here on windows to this really old and simple 'pipe' thingy over here on linux" without checking to see what was actually under the hoods of the two beasts he was comparing.
Man,
how Vulcan nipples react to cold
Nipples? It was the whole breasts man... They were downright perky
and an engine that just made warp 1
We weren't actually told how fast it went, but assumidly faster than warp 1 (since that's just the speed of light). But still, it's been like 50 years or something since the first warp flight, you'd think that they could get some engine up and running.
I still don't like the hull plating going off line
It wasn't the hull plating, it was the polarization of the hull plating. They used polatization (by electromagnetic fields) to help repel particle weapons, and that's easy to go offline =)
putting the onus on sysadmins to remove it from that state
First it's all Microsoft's fault because IIS was shipped in an "easy to use state" which made it insecure. Now you're reversing the tables and saying that the "onus" is on the sysadmins to put it into a less secure state. Will you guys ever be happy?
It looks like Microsoft may be trying to do the right thing from a security standpoint, at least on paper.
So, lemmy get this straight.... Instead of praising them for finally doing what you've been asking all along, you give hesitant "well now the onus is on the sysadmin" and "may be trying to do... at least on paper" comments... What exactly will make you happy? (besides MS rolling over and playing dead).
what the hell is it with everybody assuming that if you drop it or slip you'll explode?!!?
Does anyone out there own a butane lighter? Woah. Bet you're scared of walking around with those things as well. and those are in plastic cases. I'll bet that you've screwed around with those, making flamethrowers and I'll bet that you've dropped them plenty of times, perhaps even whipped them at things. this isn't much different people.
Have you ever dropped an actual BBQ propane tank? Go ahead. You're not going to do much damage. Those things are designed to be stable.
And these things have a VERY SMALL AMOUNT of methane in a very thick tank (relatively speaking). You'd need to take a hammer and a nail to these things in order to pierce them. There is no danger from any sort of forseen rational usage. And EVEN IF you manage to break the tank, the gas will release VERY quickly. There's little to no risk of any sort of damage.
"Stupid Idea"?? Did you bother to read the article?
What happens when your new cellphone/PDA/wireless net/wristtop starts sucking back 20x the power that your cellphone does? You want to be recharging your device once every 30 minutes?
Devices are getting a lot more integrated and needing to suck back far more juice. This is more of a proof of concept, soonafter laptops will start using this device as well, and then from there to even more complicated devices. Battery technology is what is holding us back from the really cool stuff that we've been waiting for. Technology is there, it's just that it can't be powered. This is a fantastic step in the right direction.
It's 5 years old! What do you expect?
If it was that big of a problem, couldn't you have just ordered more client licences prior to them closing support/sales for it?
I don't think that it's fair to expect a company to support an old product indefinitely.
right, but when you have the tech to build the ship and a warp drive that can do warp, then you build that, so that even if the vulcans are holding you back, you can still get your ship on the road, so to speak. I don't see why holding back warp drive information would keep you from building the ship itself that you already have an engine for. And by the sounds of it, they vulcans dragged this out for 10 years or so. You'd think that you'd just build your ship with the warp drive after the first year or so of them dragging their feet.
Unless you die on Zha'ha'duum (or however it's spelled).
Funny thing about that, it's spelt Z'ha'dum even though it's pronounced "zah-ha-doom"... go figure.
The difference was that the event was planned from the very beginning of the show
And it had a damned good plot.
and it had damned good plot continuity.
and it had damned good graphics.
and it had damned good characters.
and it had damned good character development.
and it had realistic plots.
and it had realistic tech.
(and I can go on) =)
Do you have any idea where one can get a hold of Farscape episodes? I got a few on DVD, but I haven't been able to find many others and I haven't been able to watch past the first 9 episodes =(.
Dude!! You forgot West Wing... that's gotta be one of the best drama shows on yet...
Earth, knowing that the warp core only hits warp 5?
The core currently only goes up to warp 5, but don't forget that there are races that have much more advanced warpdrives right now, and considering how earth-to-cronos is like 4 days or something (well, wait, let's not work out the math of that one) I don't think that it will be a limitation in how far they can travel.
But they'll probably have warps higher than 5 by the end of the first season, no doubt. The first season will probably have a lot of newish technologies/tweaks/new ways of trying things going on. That's one of the benefits of already having those technologies laid out, you just have to plan how to get there.
You know, a thought just occurred to me. Why would Bakula's Dad not have lived to see his drive hit warp? If Cochran already had a warp drive then there is no reason to see why Bacula's drive couldn't at least do warp before he died, if not warp 5.
All that I can see it doing is punishing the law abiding soft core porn sites
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to be displaying pornography to minors, regardless of where you are doing it? Thus the online sites are not law abiding if they are not doing at least some sort of check to try to ensure that you're of age, and just saying "by clicking here you verify that you're of age" doesn't really count.
But yes, kids can find porn... Hell, just drop down to alt.binaries.multimedia.* and pick yourself up just about anything from porn to movies to tv shows.
Well interesting call, but I saw Final Fantasy, and although it was impressive, it certainly was far from real. However give the technology another 5 to 10 years and you can probably get completely realistic looking CG. Hmm... good point. My guess would be however that if you were charged, the ownus would be upon yourself to proove that it was a CG generated image and not a real one.
We need a new moderation category, try asinine
Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
Man, you think that my post was asinine when yours was just plain stupid.
Answer me this, genious : why would I, as a company, need to contract the services of a 3rd party to maintain a list specifically for people who want to receive my products? Especially when I already have this? It's called a mailing list.
These 3rd party mass marketers only survive because they have a list of 10 million email addresses and can charge to mass broadcast out to them. If you are limited to opt-in lists, then it's trivial to maintain your own mailing list, or use any of the free mailing list services that are already on the internet.
Thus these marketing companies will cease to exist.
duh!
It's called direct marketing and it works.
Yes, it works because in those instances the task of performing the distrobution is difficult. I worked for a fax broadcasting company and we broadcasted out solicited faxes to travel agencies. Our customers did not have the resources to send out 10,000 faxes in one night, and even if they did, because of our bulk LD rates, we could do it for cheaper than they could.
Or printing of brochures and mailing them out, this is not an easy task for a company of 20 people.
However broadcasting emails is trivial for anyone who is knowledgeable about computers in the first place, and since the vast majority of companies have someone to handle their IT, this becomes a non-issue. And as I already said, there are numerous free options on the internet to handle your own mailing lists anyways.
And before you start going on about bandwidth, the act of sending the message from your side is a mere 30 bytes or so per email address (actually it's "RCPT TO " IIRC). And if you manage to have 10,000 people who are interested in your product then that's not a very large deal at all.
Use you head before posting, a keyboard is not a toy.
refresh my memory, who wasn't using their head? At least have the decency in the future to not act like an ass and voice your disagreements in a civil way.
Manufacturers already have to pay a licensing fee per unit to make DVD players. An open source system can't keep track of the number of units, and it doesn't have the money to pay a license fee. They are also supposed to keep the inner workings secret, which open source is also incapable of. These are what made the DeCSS software illegal. Since this law allows the industry to set up the "standard," we may end up with a similar plan for this law.
Are you saying that you will be required to pay a licensing fee in order to use "approved" technologies? I'm not so sure that you will... Actually I wasn't aware that you have to pay royalties on DVD, I was under the impression that it was an open standard.
what?!
"Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, Launch browser windows in a separate process"
I don't have that option. I do have that under explorer as tools, folder options, view, advanced settings, launch folder windows in a seperate process.
(I mean, what the bleep is a "friendly" URL or error message?)
right click, choose "what is this?", and it will explain it to you.
I've had the problem happen both with windows launched by right-clicking and clicking "Open in new window" and with windows launched by calling iexplore.exe via the Start button menu.
right-click and "open in new window" opens in the same process, running another iexplore.exe creates a new process.
if a window goes berserk or crashes or you kill the process, it will only kill all of the windows that were launched from that process... your other iexplore windows will be fine and unharmed.
and unless you're using windows 9x then you can't kill the system by having popup hell with iexplore windows.
I do hope that there is a special circle of eternal torment for whoever thought it was a smart idea to give the file manager and the browser the same name
Huh?
"Internet Explorer" and "Explorer" is not that small of a difference, and what does it matter? They're two seperate names. I don't understand your beef.