My first modem was 2400 BAUD (yes folks, that's a whopping 0.24 Kilobytes per second - even viewing a screen of text you had to sit there is see the data "flow" across the screen as it loaded).
Please insert all "one-up that" comments here. I'll start. My first model was an acoustically coupled 300 baud unit. For the young folk out there, communication was accomplished with a special box (modem) with two moulded cups on top. Starting with one of those standard classic telephones that Bell Telephone made so popular back in the 60s and 70s, you would dial the number of the receiving computer. When you heard the carrier tone, you would push the phone receiver down into the cups on top of the modem, and the two modems would talk just like humans do. The characters would appear on the screen at a rate that was slightly slower than most adults can read.
It's the typical "if ain't broke, don't fix it", sometimes it is a better approach than rewriting the software.
Actually, many simulators are written for DOS simply because timing-critical applications are much more reliable than under Windows. Most of the problems that drove the creation of realtime Linux kernels are relevant in the DOS/Windows worlds.
It also requires the patient's immune system to cooperate and do it's thing, something that only happened in 2 of the 17 patients.
The big problem is that they weren't even sure that their engineered T-cells were responsible for the recovery. They didn't do any tests beforehand to make sure these cells could fight the cancer!!!
this guy, against all historical data, claims that intel is losing money.
That depends on your definition of losing. If they fail to capitalize on an opportunity for profits, that could be considered "losing". For my part, I feel that any company that goes through layoffs as a response to eroding market share is plotting a course towards either bankruptcy or being bought by a competitor.
I mean what do they think there really are customers who like paying 10,000 extra little fees on top of the advertised "$29.99" or whatever per month.
Verizon is notorious for this, even in their wireless service. It proves that the arrogance issue starts at the top, given that wireless is in a different Verizon subsidiary. We changed a year from T-Mobile to Verizon. We picked a plan that was advertised at almost exactly the same cost. It had a slightly smaller number of minutes included in the package, but the amount included was more than enough. I have absolutely no complaints about the service, but the total bill ends up being 20% higher due to all the hidden "taxes" and "surcharges". Rest assured that when the contract is up, Verizon will fall off my list of carriers to do business with until I hear that they have had a change of heart.
If email is so important to you then why not purchase email service from another provider?
Word to the wise: Never rely on your ISP for your email. It is so cheap today to own a domain and get e-mail only hosting that this is what you should always do. That way, if you are unhappy with your hosting provider, you can always change. If you are unhappy with your Internet connection, or if you have to move, you don't have to notify everyone about a new email address.
In this particular case, I think it would be a good idea to see if Comcast will forward email to another email address. That way, you never have to use your Comcast email service.
sorry to be rude, but if you are a real n00b to linux, are you qualified to judge lindows, er, linspire, er, freespire beyond the install and first impressions phase?
Absolutely! It's one clear data point about how well Linspire / Freespire handles the transition of a Windows user to Linux. It's EXACTLY the kind of assessment needed if you want to know whether or not your product stands a chance of stealing market share from your biggest competitor. It's also important to understand that opinions of experienced Linux users are important too, but they answer a completely different set of questions about the product.
A cooling period in the 70's has no affect at all on their results, which are a direct measurement of the change in the change in the start of spring 1971 to 2000.
Are you actually trying to prove yourself wrong (or did I miss sarcasm here)? Tell me how a direct measurement in the start of spring from 1971 to 2000 would not be skewed by the fact that there was a cooling period in the 70s? If in generally the climate was cooler during the 70s, the start of spring would have been later and the start of autumn would have been sooner. As the climate warms up through the last 25 years of that 30 year period, spring would being to start sooner and autumn would start later.
One of the paper's lead authors, Tim Sparks from the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), said the findings did not go as far as pointing the finger of blame at human-induced climate change. "We can't tell that from our study but experts have already shown that there is a discernable human influence on the current climate warming."
He explicitly says that his study cannot show that global warming was the cause.
This quote shows very clearly that Mr. Sparks did not want to have to defend his research against claims of bias but that he absolutely wanted readers to believe that his observations were a symptom of global warming.
I apologize if missed what was intended to be a sarcastic comment.
Transilvania is rumoured more appropriate for employee holidays
As I understand, it does a wonderful job of producing employees who actually prefer to work the night shift while at the same time creating a convenient way to dispose of troublemakers.;)
True if my dad was paying for it. By that point my parents were divorced and he wasn't even paying child support. You have a point though.
Hmm. In that case he had no right whatsoever to even say anything about your computer usage. Still, I'm sure he would have gained some respect from you if he'd come up with that idea. Although it sounds like he doesn't deserve any....
"You need something incredibly stiff to oscillate at a resonant frequency of 60,000 times a second (the line-scanning rate of most video displays)..."
Desai first showed that micrometer-scale carbon fibers can bend like tiny fishing rods by more than 90 degrees and can be made to vibrate billions of times without breaking down.
So, even at 500 billion times, that would be a lifetime of only 2314 hours?? No thanks. Please post again when they get it up to 10,000.
"Carbon is normally a brittle material," Desai said, "but in the fiber form it resists breakage. We have some data implying that if it lasts three and a half days it's going to last forever."
The vast majority of the public is barely knowledgeable enough to check their damn email.
You don't need the vast majority of the public. You only need a few people who know what they are doing on each of the big monopoly networks. If they can PROVE that the big guys are engaging in anticompetitive behavior, then let the class actions begin...
Say white supremacists create a gene that kills black people. They'll find they're killing a few of their own (how rich an irony that would be)! Because we're simply too genetically related to target "race" that specifically.
Too true. And don't forget that viruses are really good at mutating. What targets one race today may target another tomorrow. Hopefully nobody is stupid enough to use genetic-trait-targeted viruses against their "enemies".
However, I also have a feeling that lots of seven year olds do not want to chance being abandoned by their parents in a place as big as a mall.
This might be true provided that the child has had a previous opportunity to feel abandoned, like being lost in a grocery store when Mommy was really only a few feet away. To a child, that kind of event might carry enough weight to help them remember. By sheer coincidence, my son has never experienced such. Hmmmm.
After reading TFA, I am still puzzled about this statement. What does it mean?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the implication is that the government is likely to try to use your DNA against you sometime in the future.
Exactly. That simply violates the second law of thermodynamics instead of the first.
No it doesn't. Who said that it performs 100% efficient conversion of heat to other forms of energy? Even 90% efficiency would be practically unheard of, and still wouldn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.
You've got to be kidding me! Right? I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to use US stats, but crime rates have been dropping for almost 30 years!
Choosing US stats is good for me, but the stats you chose aren't related to the topic of abduction. However, I WILL tell you that abductions have been dropping over the last ten years, but I would suspect that's at least partly because parents are being much more careful, and also because stores are implementing anti-kidnapping systems (which are useless when a parent cuts a child loose to wander around alone). Ten years ago, shopping malls were smaller and less crowded. These huge megamalls with tons of people are a ripe target for someone looking to abduct a child. Unfortunately, there are not adequate statistics to determine what the kidnapping rate would be if parents behaved exactly as they did ten years ago in terms of how much freedom they give their children. When my children are old enough to give any would-be attackers a kick in the nuts they'll never forget and scream "CHILD ABDUCTION" at the top of their lungs, I'll consider cutting them lose in a mall.
Are you sure you're not generalizing based on a specific 7-year-old?
I'm generalizing, but not based on a specific seven year old. My brother is a neuropsychologist, and he can pretty much back that statement up with facts. Yes, there are seven year olds who possess the appropriate brain function to make such decisions, but this is definitely not the norm. The frontal lobe, which is responsible for executive functions and impulse control is generally not sufficiently developed in a child of that age to trust that they would follow instructions that span the relatively long amount of time spent in a shopping mall. In fact, that part of the brain doesn't completely develop until in the 20s. Out of all the seven year olds I know (mostly friends of my son), there's only one that I would ALMOST trust to return to the meeting place in a shopping mall at the requested time. And that isn't my son.;)
I was probably about 3rd grade or so...what's that like 7-9 yrs old?
That would be eight or maybe nine. And my parents and I had a similar agreement at that age. However, I don't think it's safe anymore to allow your eight year old to wander a large shopping mall alone. And from experience, I know that you can't trust a seven year old to even care about what time they should return to meet you. The part of the brain necessary for that kind of judgement usually isn't connected at that age.
Like it or not science is a threat to religion, even though is much closer to the "truth" than god or religion.
You seem to be confusing Fact and Truth. To intertwine Science with Truth would be a huge mistake. Leave the pursuit of Truth for philosophy and religion.
Not everyone is comfortable knowing how and why something happened.
Belief in one or more deities and the desire to know "how and why" are not mutually exclusive.
That 'rule of English' is actually completely made-up, and should be ignored.
It's not a rule, but merely a style suggestion. Yes, I'm aware of the long list of people who supposedly contributed to this, but it's still nice to avoid the preposition at the end of the sentence when it sounds ok to do so. Also, bear in mind that the location of the preposition can change the emphasis of the statement. The basic goal is to avoid having the preposition get so far away from the object of the sentence that it becomes ambiguous or takes emphasis away from the object, or that it causes the reader to have to pause and think to understand the sentence. Clearly, moving a preposition away from the end can also create confusing results. What the writer must always keep in mind is the target audience. If writing to "normal" people, it's a safe bet to usually put the preposition at the end because your audience will think you're an arrogant jerk otherwise. When writing to lawyers (and politicians frequently fall into this group), it might be better to err on the side of moving the preposition closer to the object of the sentence. After all, when writing to arrogant jerks, you have to speak their language.;)
Slashdot Mirror
In this particular case, I think it would be a good idea to see if Comcast will forward email to another email address. That way, you never have to use your Comcast email service.
I apologize if missed what was intended to be a sarcastic comment.