The programs mentioned are bloated indeed. Try comparing them to StarOffice 3.1 or MS Word 5 on Windows 3.1.
I've got a copy of Winword 2. About 8 Mb in total. Loads in about 1 second on my 2.4Ghz machine. Does everything you'd need. I do have newer versions, for compatibility, but fail to see what features they have that I actually need.
The last version of Word I tested was that provided in Office XP, and that opened in sub 1 second times on my Athlon 1.6Ghz system. There's something botched with this guy's Word installation
He said he turned off the preloading. MS likes to do that to make Office seem faster, at the expense of slowing boot times and permanently occupying a slab of RAM. But if that's all you use all day, maybe you want that.
An AC wrote: He's complaining about slashdot linking to blogs (boingboing) which link to news stories (or, worse, to yet another blog, which then links to some sort of actual news). The problem isn't Slashdot linking to news stories. It's slashdot having so many stories now that are just links to blogs with links to stories. Why not link directly to the story? And it's getting really lame seeing slashdot link to a story on boingboing that links to a story on engadget/ gizmodo that links to a story that was originally reported on G4TV/TechTV a week or two earlier.
Just pasting that to give it some prominence.
Yes, it is fatuous when you link to a blog that links to a column that links to the original story. One reason perhaps is that the editors look at the date (if they look at anything) and it seems "new", the date is current. So of course it leads to a lot of dupes, when Slashdot posts a story that is actually a regurgitation of one posted days earlier.
No, I don't think so. It does point out the fact that MS is lying when it says it must censor to remain within the law, because there is no such law. If it said "policy" rather than law, it would be more honest. If it listed the forbidden words in its TOS, it would be in the open. Contrast Google, which when faced with legal orders to remove links to contentious sites brings up documentation of why they are doing it, and a link to another site which does have the information linked. Though Google has I think chickened out on its Google.cn version from even trying.
China has many journalists in prison on unspecified charges for breaking such non-laws. (Anything the govt doesn't want you to write about can be declared a "state secret", and you become a spy &/or traitor.) Unfortunately the US has lost all its moral authority to argue against that, and China knows it can do so with little fear of embarrassment, let alone real pressure.
For numeric codes (eg entered on a phone handset or PINSs), I often use old phone numbers (not current) of friends or businesses I've memporised by using them frequently. The FBI could work that out, but as in other stories today, they don't need to.
Song lyrics are useful too : TaLWSATGiG There's a Lady Who's Sure, All That Glitters is Gold Usually gives you mixed case too
Very unsafe. You're not the first to think of this. Most will choose from a small number, a few thousand at most, pop songs (Led Zeppelin and such are hardly obscure), very easy to add acronyms from these to a password dictionary. (There are many lyrics websites, just scrape them to get a file.)
The post used the term "rabid creationists" which cannot be taken as anything other than an insult. He was clearly speaking about the people, not the theory.
I'm the "he" above. I used the term "rabid" to describe a subgroup pf creationists, the most extreme ones, not all in general. Even so the word is not necessarily an insult; I might describe myself as a rabid about some aspects of typography, for instance.
1. Bicycle. You have to refuel it every couple of hours (eating), it has half the speed of a car (unless you're well trained), it's nowhere near as comfortable, its range is limited in comparison to a car, it can't use the interstates, and you smell by the time you get anywhere.
In most large city centres a bike can go point to point typically faster than a car, much faster if you count parking time. City traffic average speed is often barely above walking pace. There isn't much extra fuel needed, and typically it's cheap carbs you top up with. One might mention the savings on health care with lower heart disease rates; though there is a higher risk of accident depending on your location and style of riding. Unless you go for broke in summer &/or overdress there's no real odour problem.
Now, these could be duplicates, if the method is the same between them. They could be old news if it is a well known fusion method. Or they could be new methods, worthy of new articles... but they are often written so vague that there is no real way to determine the method.
If you had looked at the three previous articles other posters cited, all refer to Seth Putterman at UCLA. Unless he's invented three different fusion methods this year, I venture to say thay are indeed dupes. Today's from the CSM is particularly fluffy, a very dumbed-down explanation that might be suitable for primary school or Fox News.
Why do you think they'd go to the extra effort to add sound to space battles if they could just skip the whole step and chalk it up to being in a vacuum?
Because they think it's more exciting, and are afraid of puzzling anyone in the audience who failed primary school science. The same reason almost all media SF just has onboard gravity, regardless of how jarring it is with other technology. (If you can control gravity, you don't need rockets.)
Lucas said the space battles in the original SW were basd on WWII dogfights, and it shows. Spaceships don't bank and turn; it's no problem if "someone is on your tail", just spin around. Babylon 5 got this mostly right and it was entertaining as well. And the real master was Kubrick in 2001. Space was silent, zero G, real and majestic.
But more fundamentally: the whole idea of space battles is stupid. You won't have manned fighters, battleships and such. Just a bunch of very small, very fast, smart missiles and beam weapons striking from millions of miles away; no "whites of the eyes" dogfights. One 1990s smart bomb could have taken out the Death Star without waves of fighters, let alone "the Force".
I think if you just plopped down the Naboo and the Gungans in their pictured state of technological development, with all their gadgets and what-not, they could probably get along.
If we're talking about co-evolution, it seems rather unlikely
This begs the question whether all the "humans" in the SW universe are the same species. Unless you're a rabid creationist, the answer must be yes, and so the Naboo were colonists sometime in the not too distant (in evolutionary terms at least) past. The Gungans may be non-native too for that matter. So "co-evolving" doesn't really apply. Further, the Gungans may actually be human in ancestry, just engineered to fit an aquatic lifestyle. That in general could explain a big problem (mentioned in the NG FA), that all the intelligent species are at a very similar level scientifically; they're all human and all descended from the same planet and culture, and some have undergone radical genetic engineering (or less likely, customarily wear rubber prosthetics and furry body suits). You just can't have wars if one species is decades, let alone millions of years, ahead of the others.
According to the site linked from TFA: "What about space junk?... the ribbon structure is resilient to hits from small debris." If one grain of sand would bring it down, it's doomed anyway. Also, a normal ballistic missile doesn't put a payload in orbit, just takes it up but without the velocity to stay there, so it falls back to earth in a few minutes.
Unless the pilot is a crazed Saudi with a taste for Flight Simulator...
Sorry, this isn't "insightful". Need I say RTFA? Perhaps I do.
the elevator cable is a few mm wide, and thus invisible from any distance (though the climbers will be larger, but only a few times a day). Not an easy target
the base will be a platform on the equator in the open sea. It'll be well out of any normal flight paths, anything approaching will be very obvious a long time before it gets close.
it'll surely have air defence easily able to take out any civilian plane. In case of war, it's a sitting duck, but would probably get a battle group to look after it. In extremis they could release the tether and pull it up 100 km out of harm's way and let it down later (too bad about the platform though).
if we drain a substantial amount of energy from the Earths core (stop thinking shortterm, if we start it is possible that we will be leeching juice for hundreds of thousands of years into the future) we destroy all life on Earth.
Why don't you back that up with somne figures? I can't be botherd to spend the time to refute it, but my feeling is that you could "drain" all the energy we could feasibly use for millions of years with negligible effect. Much less effect than fossil fuels certainly. Actually, if we survive a century or two at most we'll have something better like fusion.
Because A) Not everyone who uses a library frequently has the $$$
If you'd rtfa, you would notice that this was suggested as an ALTERNATIVE to ID-style library cards; useful for visitors as well as tin-foil-hat wearers. Most users would probably stick with the free ID-based cards.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case are you responsible for "learned it's history lesson" or Timothy?
I've got a copy of Winword 2. About 8 Mb in total. Loads in about 1 second on my 2.4Ghz machine. Does everything you'd need. I do have newer versions, for compatibility, but fail to see what features they have that I actually need.
He said he turned off the preloading. MS likes to do that to make Office seem faster, at the expense of slowing boot times and permanently occupying a slab of RAM. But if that's all you use all day, maybe you want that.
Just pasting that to give it some prominence.
Yes, it is fatuous when you link to a blog that links to a column that links to the original story. One reason perhaps is that the editors look at the date (if they look at anything) and it seems "new", the date is current. So of course it leads to a lot of dupes, when Slashdot posts a story that is actually a regurgitation of one posted days earlier.
The demo ran current (Motorola) OSX apps in emulation.
No, I don't think so. It does point out the fact that MS is lying when it says it must censor to remain within the law, because there is no such law. If it said "policy" rather than law, it would be more honest. If it listed the forbidden words in its TOS, it would be in the open. Contrast Google, which when faced with legal orders to remove links to contentious sites brings up documentation of why they are doing it, and a link to another site which does have the information linked. Though Google has I think chickened out on its Google.cn version from even trying.
China has many journalists in prison on unspecified charges for breaking such non-laws. (Anything the govt doesn't want you to write about can be declared a "state secret", and you become a spy &/or traitor.) Unfortunately the US has lost all its moral authority to argue against that, and China knows it can do so with little fear of embarrassment, let alone real pressure.
If Timothy didn't read the text ("visualize of them on the on the run" WTF?) you expect him to check links?
to visualize of them on the on the run?
For numeric codes (eg entered on a phone handset or PINSs), I often use old phone numbers (not current) of friends or businesses I've memporised by using them frequently. The FBI could work that out, but as in other stories today, they don't need to.
Very unsafe. You're not the first to think of this. Most will choose from a small number, a few thousand at most, pop songs (Led Zeppelin and such are hardly obscure), very easy to add acronyms from these to a password dictionary. (There are many lyrics websites, just scrape them to get a file.)
I'm the "he" above. I used the term "rabid" to describe a subgroup pf creationists, the most extreme ones, not all in general. Even so the word is not necessarily an insult; I might describe myself as a rabid about some aspects of typography, for instance.
You flamed me for misusing a similar term, and were much more abusive about it.
but at least you read other posts
Enough to see you are actually a creationist. but is it fallacious to respond in such a manner?
Not fallacious, but obnoxious. And as you have failed to address the question other than abusing me, unproductive.
show that the opposing argument is made from an emotionally charged viewpoint
Hilarious you saying that. My feelings about creationists are "charged" with wonder at their obstinacy and irrationality.
In most large city centres a bike can go point to point typically faster than a car, much faster if you count parking time. City traffic average speed is often barely above walking pace. There isn't much extra fuel needed, and typically it's cheap carbs you top up with. One might mention the savings on health care with lower heart disease rates; though there is a higher risk of accident depending on your location and style of riding. Unless you go for broke in summer &/or overdress there's no real odour problem.
By your reasoning the sun should be acting like a refigerator.
If you had looked at the three previous articles other posters cited, all refer to Seth Putterman at UCLA. Unless he's invented three different fusion methods this year, I venture to say thay are indeed dupes. Today's from the CSM is particularly fluffy, a very dumbed-down explanation that might be suitable for primary school or Fox News.
Yes, "raises" or "suggests" is what I meant.
As for the rest, well, looks rather ad hominem (or as you would say, "ad homonym"). And of course the SW universe does have a creator after all.
Because they think it's more exciting, and are afraid of puzzling anyone in the audience who failed primary school science. The same reason almost all media SF just has onboard gravity, regardless of how jarring it is with other technology. (If you can control gravity, you don't need rockets.)
Lucas said the space battles in the original SW were basd on WWII dogfights, and it shows. Spaceships don't bank and turn; it's no problem if "someone is on your tail", just spin around. Babylon 5 got this mostly right and it was entertaining as well. And the real master was Kubrick in 2001. Space was silent, zero G, real and majestic.
But more fundamentally: the whole idea of space battles is stupid. You won't have manned fighters, battleships and such. Just a bunch of very small, very fast, smart missiles and beam weapons striking from millions of miles away; no "whites of the eyes" dogfights. One 1990s smart bomb could have taken out the Death Star without waves of fighters, let alone "the Force".
This begs the question whether all the "humans" in the SW universe are the same species. Unless you're a rabid creationist, the answer must be yes, and so the Naboo were colonists sometime in the not too distant (in evolutionary terms at least) past. The Gungans may be non-native too for that matter. So "co-evolving" doesn't really apply. Further, the Gungans may actually be human in ancestry, just engineered to fit an aquatic lifestyle. That in general could explain a big problem (mentioned in the NG FA), that all the intelligent species are at a very similar level scientifically; they're all human and all descended from the same planet and culture, and some have undergone radical genetic engineering (or less likely, customarily wear rubber prosthetics and furry body suits). You just can't have wars if one species is decades, let alone millions of years, ahead of the others.
According to the site linked from TFA: "What about space junk? ... the ribbon structure is resilient to hits from small debris." If one grain of sand would bring it down, it's doomed anyway. Also, a normal ballistic missile doesn't put a payload in orbit, just takes it up but without the velocity to stay there, so it falls back to earth in a few minutes.
You used to work at NASA, right?
It's 22,300 MILES and 200 KILOMETRES per hour.
So 22300/200*.62 = 180 hours. Hope you calculate the air supply better than the Muzak.
Thousands of miles.
The exclusion zone is where it would get shot down. They'd be tracking it for hours before then, as stated.
Sorry, this isn't "insightful". Need I say RTFA? Perhaps I do.
Why don't you back that up with somne figures? I can't be botherd to spend the time to refute it, but my feeling is that you could "drain" all the energy we could feasibly use for millions of years with negligible effect. Much less effect than fossil fuels certainly. Actually, if we survive a century or two at most we'll have something better like fusion.
If you'd rtfa, you would notice that this was suggested as an ALTERNATIVE to ID-style library cards; useful for visitors as well as tin-foil-hat wearers. Most users would probably stick with the free ID-based cards.