I'm not a civil engineer, but I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that the shock-load from higher cubes falling on lower cubes collapsed them. If the higher floors were gently lowered onto the lower ones, there probably wouldn't have been a collapse. But since they were dropped, the impact of the higher floor shock-loaded the supports for the lower one and broke them. Ouch.
"I cant see the nForce taking off in the hardcore-user arena"
As a pretty hardcore user who is dying to get my hands on one, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Its performance is comparable to the KT266A (so they're tied for best in the pack), and some of the integrated stuff could be pretty useful. I'll be pretty damned glad to get the SBLive out of my system. The special ethernet streaming stuff (not mentioned in the review...check out the preview) sounds pretty cool too. And if you want to use your own hardware, you can still install it. Most of the first round of nForce boards are probably going to be full ATX form factor with plenty of PCI slots plus AGP and that thing I didn't recognize (looks like a backwards PCI slot). And it's not really all that expensive. In fact, if memory serves, it costs less than an Abit KG7-RAID. So, while I don't like not having the option to install my own parts, in this case I don't see any real drawbacks of the integration. And I do see a few real benefits.
I'm right there with ya on the SBLive. I also really like the all-in-one driver situation. Saves a lot of trouble. And nVidia have a pretty good record with drivers. I'm getting really sick of trying to figure out which of the Via 4-in-1 drivers I'm supposed to be using, and which ones will make the machine unstable and such. When nVidia makes pretty much everything that needs a driver, life'll be much easier. Well, as long as I can still buy somebody else's stuff if nVidia does get complacent and starts sucking.
Integrated motherboards have been around for quite some time. It's just that before, most of them sucked. If you don't like the integrated stuff, then you can still install 3rd party parts on an nForce. I'm planning on getting one and installing a GeForce 3 Ti500 (probably). You could throw in your own sound card if you wanted too. Or ethernet or pretty much any other standard PCI card. So in this case, the integration doesn't really prevent you from playing with things.
"Definately not what I would consider a performance motherboard"
Why not? According to the review it pretty much shares the AMD performance crown with the KT266A. And knowing nVidia, there'll be plenty of driver releases to streamline things even more (though I'm not sure how much impact drivers have on motherboard performance). But I would definately call this a performance part. With a 1.5Ghz Palomino and an GeForce 3 Ti500, this thing'll make pretty much the ultimate gaming rig.
No it doesn't. It has an integrated GPU that nVidia says in comparable to a Geforce 2 MX 400, but Anand said wasn't quite that good. They did do some tests with GF3's.
There is no evidence, so far, that Osama bin Laden is actually responsible for the attacks on NY and DC.
You mean besides the guy who was involved and told the FBI that they were working for bin Laden? Never mind the fact that we should have gone after him after the first WTC bombing, or failing that certainly after the US embassy bombings, to say nothing of the USS Cole.
As for military operations having nothing to do with justice, that's just silly. Look at World War II for an example. Or how about Kosovo? I don't really think the US had much selfish intent there. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Yes, people die in wars. And sometimes they're innocent people. That is a tragedy, but it is sometimes a necessary one. I have some very close friends in the military, and they took oaths to defend this country and her interests even at the expense of their own lives. That was a decision they made when they entered military service. As for the Afghan kids, if they were conscripted I feel sorry for them. But that just makes me believe even more strongly that the Taliban needs to fall.
As for your "purpose of the war", I think that's just silly. I am as cynical about politicians as anybody, but if you think that Bush is taking the country into this war as a popularity stunt then you are absolutely insane. He as much as said last night that Americans would die in the war. And every politician knows that Americans in body bags hurts popularity. As he said, this is not going to be like the Gulf War or Kosovo. We'll have to fight a ground war, and that means casualties. So no, it probably won't work to increase long-term popularity for GWB. I believe that he's doing what he perceives to be the Right Thing. I happen to agree with him. He has shown himself to be a strong president. God help us if Gore had been in office. "Sure, Osama, I'll bend over and take it up the ass for you." The only reason we even have to deal with this now is that Clinton didn't have the balls to do anything about it when he should have.
My brother's gf was in the area and is okay, though extremely shaken. That's what I hear through my mother anyway.
Before today, I really don't think that Americans would react remotely similarly if something like this happened over there. As I said in my first post, I think most Americans are largely saddened by the violence in the Middle East. After today, I'm not so sure. To be completely honest, I don't think I would have complained much if police started shooting into that crowd of celebrators. On one level, I think that would be horrible. But on another, the idea of large groups of people celebrating over this is totally unthinkable, and I feel like they aught to be severely punished for being so...well...I guess evil is the only word I can think of to describe it.
News here in Baltimore was reporting thousands of people in the West Bank celebrating. People passing out candy. This makes me want to be sick. When Palistinians are reported killed on the news, I think most Americans are saddened by it. To have those people cheering over something that probably involves tens of thousands of deaths is mind-numbing. I'm not sure whether I want to cry or shoot them. Of course, that's not a whole lot better, but it's hard not to be emotional after something like this. I'm still waiting to find out whether my brother's girlfriend, who goes to NYU and was in the world trade center subway station this morning got out okay. He hasn't heard from her. I'm not a particularly religious person, but right now about all I can do is pray.
Do you have any sort of comprehension of what you read?! My argument is based on a small subset of the total, which makes up the majority of those to whom I've been exposed. As yours must as well. I can't possibly have met the entire set of "liberals" in the US, or even a majority. So I must base my assertions on my experience.
Quote: Except that I said for the most part, which is not equivalent to saying that all. How is your comment about "most liberals" any different? Is this the kind of hypocracy that you are so pained by?
As a matter of fact, no. Nice editing of what I said, though. The full clause was, "most liberals I have been exposed to". That is a small subset of "most liberals", and represents not a generalization about a large group based on ignorance, but a legitimate impression of those I have actually met. So no, it is a COMPLETELY different thing.
It seems incredibly hypocritical to me that many people who scream loudly for equality and lack of discrimination against certain groups have no problem making extremely disparaging remarks about other groups who happen to see things a little differently from them. Most "liberals" I've been exposed to will scream racism at the top of their lungs if you point out the FACT that in a given city (Baltimore for example) the vast majority of crimes are committed by African-Americans, but they have no problem saying that all Republicans are fucking assholes simply because they have different opinions. Your comments about Texas and Texans sound painfully similar to this sort of thing.
Mmmm...tazer...unreliable and very short range. If I miss the first time, I'm fukt. Sounds like fun to me.
As for carrying an AK47, as long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, I don't see why that's a problem (though I never particularly mentioned any desire to carry assault weapons, you fabricated that). OTOH, if I open up with an assault weapon and kill or injure innocents with it, I should be put away for a long long time. An AK47 is not really a practical personal defense weapon unless you're expecting to be attacked by a whole mob of people. A hand gun like a USP.45 is better for something like that. You can conceal it, it doesn't penetrate all that far, but if you hit the guy you're shooting at, it'll DEFINATELY knock his ass down.
And as for moronic, that applies much better to the people who think that despite extensive and unbiased (despite what the gungrabbing nuts claimed when they couldn't disprove it rationally) research demonstrates that "right to carry" laws (basically if you apply for a permit and you don't have a record or anything, you get the permit) significantly reduce violent crime on both short and long term.
Don't take away my freedoms when I haven't committed a crime. That's just wrong. OTOH, I have no problem with some pretty strong punishment if I do committ a crime. It's all an issue of taking responsibility for your actions. The so-called "liberals" in the US seem to think that people shouldn't be forced to take responsibility for their actions. So, since people aren't responsible for their actions, you have to take away any possible way somebody could committ a crime. It's like the parody, The Digital Millenium Rape Act (http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3 642/1/). If you have the means to committ a crime, then you're committing a crime. Bullshit! If I'm not hurting anybody, then it shouldn't be a crime.
In general I'm talking about the freedoms guaranteed in the amendments to the US Constitution. This includes the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), which I think most of the countries you mentioned have pretty much done away with (I'm not 100% sure on this). And I think it's also important that we have a document like the Bill of Rights which guarantees these freedoms. That said, I admit that our damned government has pretty much ignored the constitution in the last 50 years.
LOL...probably right. Still pisses me off, though. I expressed a legitimate opinion which was based on fact. I didn't bash the Jews or really even Israel in general. I just pointed out something that not too many people know. Oh well. People can be bastards.
If I remember correctly...legal precedent is only binding in any way in the jurisdiction it comes from. This makes sense given that in many cases, diferent jurisdictions have diferent laws. OTOH, they are frequently used as an example of the way somebody else "solved" the same problem. This is especially true of the diferent circuit US courts where the federal laws are pretty much uniform, but it is also true in other areas too. Many states' courts look at what California courts do because they tend to be something of a "leader". The Australian precedent isn't binding on any other nations' courts, but it may set a trend. And even if it doesn't, it still leaves Australians able to sue under Australian laws across Australian borders. This isn't that much of a danger to most private citizens (unless you happen to have assets in Ox), but it is a great danger to many corporations that do business down there. Especially press-related ones.
Where are you? I'm in the Peoples' Socialist Democratic Republik of Maryland (thanks to John Jasen), and we can't buy (or are at least seriously limited) kevlar body armor (bullet proof vest). I'm pretty sure we can't buy armor piercing ammo (not so sure about this, and probably depends on your definition). I think I can still buy a hand gun (though I have to wait 2 weeks for a background check that should be instant), though Glendenning is trying to outlaw that too. I can't carry (which is guaranteed in the second amendment). If you don't think they can violate the constitution, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are hopelessly naive.
ROFL...you think Australia is like Texas??? Now I haven't been to either, but it is my strong impression that Texans are all about freedoms. Especially those legally guaranteed in Amendments 1 through 10 of the US Constitution. Australia is clearly not (at least their gov'ment).
Yeah, and the US was founded on some lofty ideals of freedom (which I happen to believe in with all my heart and soul). Look what's happening now. Both political parties (especially the so-called Democrats) are taking away our rights as fast as they can possibly grab them. We're filing criminal charges with a possible 25-year prison term on a foreign national who wrote a program (legal in his country where he wrote it) that has perfectly legal uses. Morons have a nasty tendency to lose sight of the past (and reality for that matter...look at "gun control").
And as a previous poster said, I think the UN is trying to create some sort of international treaty/convention for this. Problem is they're basically trying to say the same thing as the Aussies. And you will see the Taliban sending people to jail for having sex before marriage. The problem with stuff like that is it most affects the freer nations (US is still the best I know of, sad though that is).
My guess is that Dow Jones actually does do some business in Australia. That means that they're accountable there. They probably have an office and actual tax standing and such. I suppose they could close all of their business in Oz and then tell the government to bugger off, but that'd probably cost them more money then the law suit.
Quote: The US is opposing this, but the UN claims to only need 60 countries to sign on to affect the others.
The real question regards the US administration if and when the UN does pass such a piece of shit resolution. If the administration has the balls to refuse to follow the resolution, who's gonna do something about it. The US is the bulk of the military might that enforces (or doesn't) US resolutions. Take the situation in Israel, for example. The resolutions instructing Israel to withdraw from the occupied teritory are exactly the same kind of resolutions (though much older) as the one demanding Iraq withdraw from Kuait. Guess which one nobody cares about. I wonder whether that could have something to do with Israel being "our friends." So who's gonna come get me when I violate a law from somewherethefuckistan? I'm starting to think that the US really should withdraw from the UN. OTOH, the permanent seat on the security council is useful.
Important to note, though, that as far as I can tell, it's not actually a LAW. It's a legal precedent. If somebody in Oz tried to sue me (a private citizen) for defamation, I could probably just tell them to go to Hell. As long as I didn't ever want to go to Oz, that is. I doubt the US government (bastards, though they can be) would enforce such a ruling. I just sit in my nice cozy apartment and laugh at them. Their cops don't have jurisdiction in the US. So long as ours don't help out (seems unlikely...got to keep up pretences of free speech), I'm perfectly safe. Still sucks for large corporations who do business down there and have to be accountable.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a civil engineer, but I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that the shock-load from higher cubes falling on lower cubes collapsed them. If the higher floors were gently lowered onto the lower ones, there probably wouldn't have been a collapse. But since they were dropped, the impact of the higher floor shock-loaded the supports for the lower one and broke them. Ouch.
"I cant see the nForce taking off in the hardcore-user arena"
As a pretty hardcore user who is dying to get my hands on one, I'm gonna have to disagree with you. Its performance is comparable to the KT266A (so they're tied for best in the pack), and some of the integrated stuff could be pretty useful. I'll be pretty damned glad to get the SBLive out of my system. The special ethernet streaming stuff (not mentioned in the review...check out the preview) sounds pretty cool too. And if you want to use your own hardware, you can still install it. Most of the first round of nForce boards are probably going to be full ATX form factor with plenty of PCI slots plus AGP and that thing I didn't recognize (looks like a backwards PCI slot). And it's not really all that expensive. In fact, if memory serves, it costs less than an Abit KG7-RAID. So, while I don't like not having the option to install my own parts, in this case I don't see any real drawbacks of the integration. And I do see a few real benefits.
I'm right there with ya on the SBLive. I also really like the all-in-one driver situation. Saves a lot of trouble. And nVidia have a pretty good record with drivers. I'm getting really sick of trying to figure out which of the Via 4-in-1 drivers I'm supposed to be using, and which ones will make the machine unstable and such. When nVidia makes pretty much everything that needs a driver, life'll be much easier. Well, as long as I can still buy somebody else's stuff if nVidia does get complacent and starts sucking.
Integrated motherboards have been around for quite some time. It's just that before, most of them sucked. If you don't like the integrated stuff, then you can still install 3rd party parts on an nForce. I'm planning on getting one and installing a GeForce 3 Ti500 (probably). You could throw in your own sound card if you wanted too. Or ethernet or pretty much any other standard PCI card. So in this case, the integration doesn't really prevent you from playing with things.
"Definately not what I would consider a performance motherboard"
Why not? According to the review it pretty much shares the AMD performance crown with the KT266A. And knowing nVidia, there'll be plenty of driver releases to streamline things even more (though I'm not sure how much impact drivers have on motherboard performance). But I would definately call this a performance part. With a 1.5Ghz Palomino and an GeForce 3 Ti500, this thing'll make pretty much the ultimate gaming rig.
No it doesn't. It has an integrated GPU that nVidia says in comparable to a Geforce 2 MX 400, but Anand said wasn't quite that good. They did do some tests with GF3's.
There is no evidence, so far, that Osama bin Laden is actually responsible for the attacks on NY and DC.
You mean besides the guy who was involved and told the FBI that they were working for bin Laden? Never mind the fact that we should have gone after him after the first WTC bombing, or failing that certainly after the US embassy bombings, to say nothing of the USS Cole.
As for military operations having nothing to do with justice, that's just silly. Look at World War II for an example. Or how about Kosovo? I don't really think the US had much selfish intent there. Sorry. I just don't buy it. Yes, people die in wars. And sometimes they're innocent people. That is a tragedy, but it is sometimes a necessary one. I have some very close friends in the military, and they took oaths to defend this country and her interests even at the expense of their own lives. That was a decision they made when they entered military service. As for the Afghan kids, if they were conscripted I feel sorry for them. But that just makes me believe even more strongly that the Taliban needs to fall.
As for your "purpose of the war", I think that's just silly. I am as cynical about politicians as anybody, but if you think that Bush is taking the country into this war as a popularity stunt then you are absolutely insane. He as much as said last night that Americans would die in the war. And every politician knows that Americans in body bags hurts popularity. As he said, this is not going to be like the Gulf War or Kosovo. We'll have to fight a ground war, and that means casualties. So no, it probably won't work to increase long-term popularity for GWB. I believe that he's doing what he perceives to be the Right Thing. I happen to agree with him. He has shown himself to be a strong president. God help us if Gore had been in office. "Sure, Osama, I'll bend over and take it up the ass for you." The only reason we even have to deal with this now is that Clinton didn't have the balls to do anything about it when he should have.
My brother's gf was in the area and is okay, though extremely shaken. That's what I hear through my mother anyway.
Before today, I really don't think that Americans would react remotely similarly if something like this happened over there. As I said in my first post, I think most Americans are largely saddened by the violence in the Middle East. After today, I'm not so sure. To be completely honest, I don't think I would have complained much if police started shooting into that crowd of celebrators. On one level, I think that would be horrible. But on another, the idea of large groups of people celebrating over this is totally unthinkable, and I feel like they aught to be severely punished for being so...well...I guess evil is the only word I can think of to describe it.
News here in Baltimore was reporting thousands of people in the West Bank celebrating. People passing out candy. This makes me want to be sick. When Palistinians are reported killed on the news, I think most Americans are saddened by it. To have those people cheering over something that probably involves tens of thousands of deaths is mind-numbing. I'm not sure whether I want to cry or shoot them. Of course, that's not a whole lot better, but it's hard not to be emotional after something like this. I'm still waiting to find out whether my brother's girlfriend, who goes to NYU and was in the world trade center subway station this morning got out okay. He hasn't heard from her. I'm not a particularly religious person, but right now about all I can do is pray.
Do you have any sort of comprehension of what you read?! My argument is based on a small subset of the total, which makes up the majority of those to whom I've been exposed. As yours must as well. I can't possibly have met the entire set of "liberals" in the US, or even a majority. So I must base my assertions on my experience.
Quote: Except that I said for the most part, which is not equivalent to saying that all. How is your comment about "most liberals" any different? Is this the kind of hypocracy that you are so pained by? As a matter of fact, no. Nice editing of what I said, though. The full clause was, "most liberals I have been exposed to". That is a small subset of "most liberals", and represents not a generalization about a large group based on ignorance, but a legitimate impression of those I have actually met. So no, it is a COMPLETELY different thing.
It seems incredibly hypocritical to me that many people who scream loudly for equality and lack of discrimination against certain groups have no problem making extremely disparaging remarks about other groups who happen to see things a little differently from them. Most "liberals" I've been exposed to will scream racism at the top of their lungs if you point out the FACT that in a given city (Baltimore for example) the vast majority of crimes are committed by African-Americans, but they have no problem saying that all Republicans are fucking assholes simply because they have different opinions. Your comments about Texas and Texans sound painfully similar to this sort of thing.
Mmmm...tazer...unreliable and very short range. If I miss the first time, I'm fukt. Sounds like fun to me.
.45 is better for something like that. You can conceal it, it doesn't penetrate all that far, but if you hit the guy you're shooting at, it'll DEFINATELY knock his ass down.
3 642/1/). If you have the means to committ a crime, then you're committing a crime. Bullshit! If I'm not hurting anybody, then it shouldn't be a crime.
As for carrying an AK47, as long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, I don't see why that's a problem (though I never particularly mentioned any desire to carry assault weapons, you fabricated that). OTOH, if I open up with an assault weapon and kill or injure innocents with it, I should be put away for a long long time. An AK47 is not really a practical personal defense weapon unless you're expecting to be attacked by a whole mob of people. A hand gun like a USP
And as for moronic, that applies much better to the people who think that despite extensive and unbiased (despite what the gungrabbing nuts claimed when they couldn't disprove it rationally) research demonstrates that "right to carry" laws (basically if you apply for a permit and you don't have a record or anything, you get the permit) significantly reduce violent crime on both short and long term.
Don't take away my freedoms when I haven't committed a crime. That's just wrong. OTOH, I have no problem with some pretty strong punishment if I do committ a crime. It's all an issue of taking responsibility for your actions. The so-called "liberals" in the US seem to think that people shouldn't be forced to take responsibility for their actions. So, since people aren't responsible for their actions, you have to take away any possible way somebody could committ a crime. It's like the parody, The Digital Millenium Rape Act (http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/
In general I'm talking about the freedoms guaranteed in the amendments to the US Constitution. This includes the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), which I think most of the countries you mentioned have pretty much done away with (I'm not 100% sure on this). And I think it's also important that we have a document like the Bill of Rights which guarantees these freedoms. That said, I admit that our damned government has pretty much ignored the constitution in the last 50 years.
LOL...probably right. Still pisses me off, though. I expressed a legitimate opinion which was based on fact. I didn't bash the Jews or really even Israel in general. I just pointed out something that not too many people know. Oh well. People can be bastards.
WTF??? This wasn't a troll! Somebody please explain this to me!
Well, I guess I can just hope that M2 will catch the idiot.
If I remember correctly...legal precedent is only binding in any way in the jurisdiction it comes from. This makes sense given that in many cases, diferent jurisdictions have diferent laws. OTOH, they are frequently used as an example of the way somebody else "solved" the same problem. This is especially true of the diferent circuit US courts where the federal laws are pretty much uniform, but it is also true in other areas too. Many states' courts look at what California courts do because they tend to be something of a "leader". The Australian precedent isn't binding on any other nations' courts, but it may set a trend. And even if it doesn't, it still leaves Australians able to sue under Australian laws across Australian borders. This isn't that much of a danger to most private citizens (unless you happen to have assets in Ox), but it is a great danger to many corporations that do business down there. Especially press-related ones.
Where are you? I'm in the Peoples' Socialist Democratic Republik of Maryland (thanks to John Jasen), and we can't buy (or are at least seriously limited) kevlar body armor (bullet proof vest). I'm pretty sure we can't buy armor piercing ammo (not so sure about this, and probably depends on your definition). I think I can still buy a hand gun (though I have to wait 2 weeks for a background check that should be instant), though Glendenning is trying to outlaw that too. I can't carry (which is guaranteed in the second amendment). If you don't think they can violate the constitution, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are hopelessly naive.
ROFL...you think Australia is like Texas??? Now I haven't been to either, but it is my strong impression that Texans are all about freedoms. Especially those legally guaranteed in Amendments 1 through 10 of the US Constitution. Australia is clearly not (at least their gov'ment).
Yeah, and the US was founded on some lofty ideals of freedom (which I happen to believe in with all my heart and soul). Look what's happening now. Both political parties (especially the so-called Democrats) are taking away our rights as fast as they can possibly grab them. We're filing criminal charges with a possible 25-year prison term on a foreign national who wrote a program (legal in his country where he wrote it) that has perfectly legal uses. Morons have a nasty tendency to lose sight of the past (and reality for that matter...look at "gun control").
I do. But that doesn't make it any less wrong when somebody else does it.
No, then they'd actually be right for once. :-)
And as a previous poster said, I think the UN is trying to create some sort of international treaty/convention for this. Problem is they're basically trying to say the same thing as the Aussies. And you will see the Taliban sending people to jail for having sex before marriage. The problem with stuff like that is it most affects the freer nations (US is still the best I know of, sad though that is).
My guess is that Dow Jones actually does do some business in Australia. That means that they're accountable there. They probably have an office and actual tax standing and such. I suppose they could close all of their business in Oz and then tell the government to bugger off, but that'd probably cost them more money then the law suit.
Quote: The US is opposing this, but the UN claims to only need 60 countries to sign on to affect the others.
The real question regards the US administration if and when the UN does pass such a piece of shit resolution. If the administration has the balls to refuse to follow the resolution, who's gonna do something about it. The US is the bulk of the military might that enforces (or doesn't) US resolutions. Take the situation in Israel, for example. The resolutions instructing Israel to withdraw from the occupied teritory are exactly the same kind of resolutions (though much older) as the one demanding Iraq withdraw from Kuait. Guess which one nobody cares about. I wonder whether that could have something to do with Israel being "our friends." So who's gonna come get me when I violate a law from somewherethefuckistan? I'm starting to think that the US really should withdraw from the UN. OTOH, the permanent seat on the security council is useful.
Important to note, though, that as far as I can tell, it's not actually a LAW. It's a legal precedent. If somebody in Oz tried to sue me (a private citizen) for defamation, I could probably just tell them to go to Hell. As long as I didn't ever want to go to Oz, that is. I doubt the US government (bastards, though they can be) would enforce such a ruling. I just sit in my nice cozy apartment and laugh at them. Their cops don't have jurisdiction in the US. So long as ours don't help out (seems unlikely...got to keep up pretences of free speech), I'm perfectly safe. Still sucks for large corporations who do business down there and have to be accountable.