4x is almost not worth it, depending on price - give spinning media another year or two and they'll match that gain.
The thing that increases for HDs is throughput. Essentially this means the sustained rate that can be transferred by a HD once it's found the right position to read from.
What DOESN'T get better very fast is latency. That is the time it takes for a HD to seek a new position on the HD.
So a 4 times improvement in load times is extremely significant, and worth the money. I'd love to have about 5-10 gigs of space for the OS to load up very quickly (or to make things faster, from a hibernate/deep sleep). I'd probbably buy such a HD and leave any major data storage to my fileserver.
It remains to be seen how much this actually will improve performance however.
Of course not, because it's going to be outrageously expensive!
I bet it won't. This is really just taking two pieces of off the shelf technology and combining them together. I'd expect a 20 gig drive to be somewhere around $300-$400. That's certainly a lot more expensive than a HD, but it's not so expensive that it doesn't fit into the budget of higher-end computers.
why wouldn't you attempt to correct the problem with the dollar (by not running a 1/2 trillion dollar deficit) rather than finding cheaper materials?
Well, I'm not an economist, but I believe the value of the dollar relative to other currencies is a LOT more complicated than the federal budget deficit. I thought it had a lot to do with the trade deficit, interest rates between countries, etc.
The other thing is that the peny/nickel problem is really quite minor. You don't really consider changing the economic policies of an entire country because it's becoming expensive to make replacement coins. That's not to say our economic policies shouldn't be changed, just that fixing the coin problem is a pretty dumb reason to do it.
Still I belive that somebody at Nintendo has been watching the tech community and made sure that bits of information was constantly spilled so there was a reason to post a new Wii story every day.
My problem is that the marketing guys think what they're doing is having an effect. My girlfriend and I went to a friends house to play Wii. I haven't owned a console since the Atari 2600, and my girlfriend has never owned a console. Both of us thought it was pretty cool and we might eventually buy one. I'm pretty sure our friend wasn't paid by someone. There were multiple stories on Slashdot about people who's parents played the thing till 1am. Are we really supposed to believe these were all plants?
See, the thing about viral marketing is that people LIKE believing what other people have to say. If anything the attempts by the marketing guys to supercharge word-of-mouth campaigns is just going to wind up hurting them if anything. If companies destroy this trust, people are just going to be even more skeptical of any claim made by a friend, some guy online, etc.
If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you.
I'm kinda guessing this might be the problem that most people have with the game. The idea that everyone is either with you, against you, or can be converted is what drives us non-fundamentalists batshit insane. As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity.
That's funny. Non fundamentalist christians say the exact same thing about fundamentalist christians. "Oh they're not REAL christians". Can't you all just agree that a vaguely worded book with contradictory teachings (oh.. until you "interpret it right"), and multiple translations from an archaic language are often interpreted in wildly different ways? Whenever one of you disagrees with the others actions, you just say "Oh.. see.. THAT guy isn't a REAL christian, he's a fake one that's perverted the teachings of the bible". The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
What a strange statement. The Crusaders would be somehow justified in their actions if they only killed certain people? As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
There are some that might say a religion that can be exploited in this manner has an inherent problem with it. I'm one of those people.
I think that in the future the way we (slashdot/digg/bloggers) marketed the Wii will be a textbook sample of how viral marketing is done.
And what exactly is that process? From what I've seen it's:
1. Develop product that people want, does something new and interesting that no other product has done before, and at a reasonable price. 2. Produce that product in adequate numbers so people can actually buy the product.
See, the hard part is accumplishing step 1. Most companies would give their eye teeth to be able to find the right combination of features for the right price that people want and is new and different enough that people will talk about it.
The only thing new about "viral marketing" is the name "viral marketing". You could say the same thing about television when it first came out, but no one called having their friends over to watch Milton Bearly "viral marketing".
I'd believe that if it weren't for the extremely large number of pirates operating in Chinese waters. Assuming said pirates aren't operating with the full knowledge of the Government, of course.
And are pirates operating in the Yangtze river where this species of dolphin lives? Also, my guess is pirates know how to play the game so they don't get caught. I kinda doubt the greenpeace guys, or other environmental groups know how to do this. the Government is unlikely to have made any serious effort to stop a group that saved said Government from political embarrassment or expense, particularly if said Government could claim credit for any success
If I were a Chinese government official, I might be leary of news travelling around that China couldn't stop the extinction of a species that only exists in China, and had to allow outsiders to do it.
Also, how expensive would it have been for any of these groups to mount a full-fledged captive breeding program? I certainly don't know.
My point is that's it's pretty easy to sit on your easy-chair and be critical of outside groups not stopping this. It's quite a bit different when you consider what it actually might take to do something about it. I have a hard time believing it's a simple movie-plot where they sneak into China, round up some dolphins, then high tail it out, with cute dolphins doing tricks on the ship while the credits role. (Throw in a love story, some personal sacrifice, and someone being left behind, and you've got yourself a summer blockbuster).
Let me give you an example. Bees. The American commercial bee population is a monoculture.
This is actually something I know a little about, as my girlfriend took a bee keeping class last spring and wants to keep bees next spring. Commercial bees are NOT a monoculture. There's several different strains you can buy. Some are more resistant to the mite problem. Her instructor is actually developing a strain of "hygenic" bees that clean out hives quickly from mite infestations. Now, what happens when it's cows or corn? Rice? Wheat?
I'm not sure any of those things are a mono-culture. There may be certain hybrids of each of those that are a mono-culture and that's a potential problem. Apples are an example of a plant that're all mono-culture (Apples trees are all clones of the original tree that produces that type of apple).
Anyway, your argument is kind of silly. A minor species of dolphins dying off has nothing to do with threats to the food supply. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent species from becoming extinct due to us changing the environment.
Mono-cultures of a the food supply are in general a bad idea since it can lead to an enormous shortage if some staple crop fails. But connecting that to dolphin extinction makes no sense, and only sounds like FUD.
Humans are natural, hence they are part of natural selection.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean we have to role over and die everytime a species is threatened. (Which is what the original poster seemed to imply). The natural world isn't some totally uncontrollable force. The extinction of this species proves that because it's a result of human change to the environment.
This false dichotomy between nature and man is, frankly, just so much hippie bullshit. Hippie? The split between man/nature goes back a LOT longer than the frickin hippies. Personally I've always blamed it on a Judeo-Christian view of the world. It's really more of a religious belief than anything else, since when you question anyone on it they look at you like you just said the moon is made of cheese. Yet they can't provide any evidence that there's a real seperation between man and nature, it's an unquestionable world view. It pisses me off because it leads them to so many false conclusions.
The environmentalists were equally capable of moving the dolphins. The politicians could hardly have stopped them - even if they wanted to. And why would they have wanted to? It would have gotten rid of the problem, would have allowed them to claim credit if the solution worked, and would have cost them nothing if it had failed.
Environmentalists were equally capable of relocating the dolphins. There's so much boat traffic and so much illegal fishing, who would have noticed the Rainbow Warrior flooding a compartment and stuffing a few dolphins in it? The dolphins need a fresh water river and there's not exactly a world shortage of those.
I'm not a big supporter of Greenpeace, but I have to guess that China just might have a little more control over it's borders than you're implying. Are you really suggesting they should have lied to chinese officials and gained entrance to the interrior of China, then mounted a major operation to find.. 10? 20? 50? 100? dolphins required to maintain a large genetic diversity?
I don't know much about Chinese prisons, but I'm guessing they aren't nice places, and China would have no problems throwing anyone they caught "stealing" dolphins into a dark place for 20 years.
You can blame groups outside of China all you like, but the truth is unless China was onboard with the program, it wouldn't have happened.
Wow, do you like live right next the broadcast antenna or something?
No, the transmitters are about 6 miles away. There's one station transmitter that's about 35 miles away which occasionally I need to adjust my ad-hoc antenna to receive. I've seen digital TV on three occasions at a friends house and on every occasion the signal quality was horrible.
Maybe your friend has a crappy antenna, poor positioning of the antenna, a house that blocks the signal, or a crappy television that doesn't pick up the signal well?
I want your users. I lost internet access three times last year because some dumbass down the hall plugged his router in backwards and was trying to NAT the whole damn building.
Heh. Well I didn't say they understood what's going on at all. In their own home they can only screw up their own crap (and when it doesn't work, they plug it in the other way). In a public LAN they're dangerous as hell.
I had a similar problem a few years ago when some damn fool miss-configured his router with the same IP address as the NAT. It took me half an hour to figure out what he'd done (and confirming it via looking through ARP cache). Another time a different guy setup his router to advertise DHCP for the whole network, routing everything through his router. A third example was when a business on a totally seperate network many miles away. He had the same DSL provider as me and miss-configured his subnet mask (and I believe the DSL modem at that point was bridged). The end effect was that stuff going across his network across town wound up on my network, even though my network wasn't the destination (taking up a LOT of bandwidth). I never really did fully understand that one (though I really don't understand how DSL bridges work either).
Exactly. You can't rely on these scientists.. they're obviously biased because they keep coming up with data that supports what the liberals are saying! Scientist clearly have a liberal bias. I trust the guys without backgrounds in science who write articles in newspapers critical of global warming. They don't have any of that "liberal science bias" because they're not scientists! I just love it when the damn scientists criticize them using their liberal science! It shows the inherent bias they have. Clearly the more you know about global warming, the more biased you are.
At what point did I say botulinum toxin is transmitted through bites or stings?
My guess is right here:
Botox (botulism toxin), anyone? I'm sure it hurts like hell if you're *stung* with the toxin
You changed the subject to butulism toxin, then used the pro-noun "it". Since you didn't mention a change in subject it's pretty easy to make the assumption that you're still talking about botulinum toxin. I know I was confused. Try to be more specific in your statements to avoid confusion in the future.
I find it impossible to imagine that most non-technical people are asking for routers/gateways when they purchase their PCs.
Most of them don't know what the hell it is, they just want something that'll allow them to connect multiple computers on the same internet connection. Do you have any evidence?
Just my own experience. It really doesn't take much of any technical experience to setup a NAT. Your average interface-jockey can certainly plug the thing into the cable modem, and plug his computers into the lan side.
but they're in the minority now. They provide you with a cable "modem" that acts as a bridge between their network and your PC. The PC gets a globally valid address.
That's true, but there's a large percentage of people with more than one computer/game console/etc in their household, and roadrunner only provides one IP address unless you want to pay big money for business class service. Those people will buy a cheap NAT router at best-buy and plug it in so they can get more than one computer connected to the internet.
Also, DSL modems these days almost universally provide a NAT inside them. All this adds up to most people being behind a NAT. Obviously there's still people NOT behind a NAT, but the numbers are shrinking every day.
That may have been true 10 years ago, but these days most home PCs are at least behind a NAT. Unless you've gone out of your way and configured your NAT to forward all ports to your PC (i.e. a DMZ), outside attacks will be quite useless. The only threat in this case is the user downloading a virus from email, or visiting a compromised website. If you run windows update (well, several times) before you do either of those things, there's no danger.
A brief look at Wikipedia indicates there's already a commercially available drug derived from conotoxin that provides relief from pain:
-conotoxin inhibits N-type voltage-dependent calcium channels. Because N-type voltage-dependent calcium channels are related to algesia (sensitivity to pain) in the nervous system, -conotoxin has an analgesic effect: the effect of -conotoxin M VII A is 100 to 1000 times that of morphine. Therefore -conotoxin M VII A is used as an analgesic drug named ziconotide; it is marketed under the brand name Prialt®.
Presumably this is a different component of conotoxin.
You have a strange definition of activism. We used to just call it complaining and communication. Apparently letting people know what you think is now "activism". Wow, all those times I send food or beer back for poor quality I didn't know I was an "activist".
...as long as you don't know what the artifacts of overly-compressed digital video look like. If you do, it can look absolutely awful.
Is that kind of like Wiley-Coyote knowing about gravity, and suddenly being affected by it?
I actually see the effects of overly-compressed digital video all the time, as I have satellite TV. It's occasionally annoying, but not really a big deal. I haven't watched a lot of over-the-air digital TV, but I've yet to see artifacts, only poor signal quality from a station that's 35 miles away on my ad-hoc antenna.
I bought a new TV a few months ago. I couldn't afford a ueber-expensive HDTV, but the TV I did buy is capable of receiving digital signals and downconverting them to the resolution a normal TV is capable of (the new digital standard in called ATSC).
The digital signal is really quite excellent. Analog signals have always been snowy, fuzzy, and filled with distortion. The digital signal is clean and crisp. I don't even have some special antenna either, I chinced out and cut off the shielding from an old coaxial cable. Works perfectly if you position it right.
In fact, all televisions sold in the US above 25 inches are required by the FCC to be able to receive digital signals. Next year on March 1st that requirement will go down to 13 inches or larger. Of course that doesn't mean that all retailers in in compliance. I'd recommend if you see a TV 25 inches or larger being sold that doesn't have a digital tuner in it that you complain to the management of the store, and maybe the FCC.
Now we know how our grandparents felt when broadcasters switched to a color signal. Their old black-and-white tv's (which couldn't read the color signal at all in many/most cases) suddenly became excessively-large paperweights.
Huh? Black and white sets work just fine, and always have since NTSC was developed. The color signal standard was developed to be backwards compatible with black and white sets. Essentially the color information is transmitted on a different frequency, and the television combines this information with the black and white information to create a picture. Black and white sets were produced and sold for many years after color sets became available because color was quite a bit more expensive.
Sorry, but you're 100% wrong in your entire post. There's no "black and white TVs reads the color signal and converts it into grayscale". Maybe you should learn something about the NTSC standard before you post?
I know slashdot's readership has a decidedly socalist leaning about many things, but what is wrong with people deciding to profit from what they have created? Why is foregoing said profit considered "noble"?
Nothing. It's not really profit that's the issue, it's mass-commercialization and expanding a site beyond the original scope, and the drive not to just make some money, but to make as much money as you possibly can.
Those goals often times are in direct opposition to providing a usefull service to the community. There's nothing noble about not making money, or anything wrong with making money. There is something noble about putting your goals of service above the goals of profit. It doesn't mean that Craigslist can't make a profit, it just means you don't throw everything else away for a drive to make more and more money.
Not that I have a problem with either, but the majority of the traffic has to be to the escorts, swinging, and deciant listings.
Those are certainly what shocks people, but a quick look at numbers doesn't really support that theory. For Minneapolis I see 28,000 personals listings (most of which have no "deviant" component to them), 78,000 for sale listings, 12,000 services (a small percentage of which includes hookers), 17,000 housing listings, and 7,000 jobs listings. The numbers in each category vary with each city (which is interesting), but none have a large portion of hookers, swingers, or "deviants".
From what I've seen, most people seem to use craiglist to sell stuff, free personals ads, find apartments, or find jobs. Personally I've used it to find a job, find an apartment, and buy and sell things (already have the girlfriend situation taken care of). I've got friends who've used it to sell stuff, and find "love", but I've never known anyone that's used it to find hookers, swingers or "deviant sex". Maybe everyone I know is doing that and keeping it secret, but I doubt it. Obviously there's people that do that, but the number of ads don't show it's anywhere near the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
4x is almost not worth it, depending on price - give spinning media another year or two and they'll match that gain.
The thing that increases for HDs is throughput. Essentially this means the sustained rate that can be transferred by a HD once it's found the right position to read from.
What DOESN'T get better very fast is latency. That is the time it takes for a HD to seek a new position on the HD.
So a 4 times improvement in load times is extremely significant, and worth the money. I'd love to have about 5-10 gigs of space for the OS to load up very quickly (or to make things faster, from a hibernate/deep sleep). I'd probbably buy such a HD and leave any major data storage to my fileserver.
It remains to be seen how much this actually will improve performance however.
Of course not, because it's going to be outrageously expensive!
I bet it won't. This is really just taking two pieces of off the shelf technology and combining them together. I'd expect a 20 gig drive to be somewhere around $300-$400. That's certainly a lot more expensive than a HD, but it's not so expensive that it doesn't fit into the budget of higher-end computers.
And what does any of that have to do with the coin problem? You're trying to make this into a larger issue than it is.
why wouldn't you attempt to correct the problem with the dollar (by not running a 1/2 trillion dollar deficit) rather than finding cheaper materials?
Well, I'm not an economist, but I believe the value of the dollar relative to other currencies is a LOT more complicated than the federal budget deficit. I thought it had a lot to do with the trade deficit, interest rates between countries, etc.
The other thing is that the peny/nickel problem is really quite minor. You don't really consider changing the economic policies of an entire country because it's becoming expensive to make replacement coins. That's not to say our economic policies shouldn't be changed, just that fixing the coin problem is a pretty dumb reason to do it.
Still I belive that somebody at Nintendo has been watching the tech community and made sure that bits of information was constantly spilled so there was a reason to post a new Wii story every day.
My problem is that the marketing guys think what they're doing is having an effect. My girlfriend and I went to a friends house to play Wii. I haven't owned a console since the Atari 2600, and my girlfriend has never owned a console. Both of us thought it was pretty cool and we might eventually buy one. I'm pretty sure our friend wasn't paid by someone. There were multiple stories on Slashdot about people who's parents played the thing till 1am. Are we really supposed to believe these were all plants?
See, the thing about viral marketing is that people LIKE believing what other people have to say. If anything the attempts by the marketing guys to supercharge word-of-mouth campaigns is just going to wind up hurting them if anything. If companies destroy this trust, people are just going to be even more skeptical of any claim made by a friend, some guy online, etc.
These are two interesting statements
A Christian is anyone who believes in Christ. John 3:16, you know?
YOU don't get to decide who is and isn't a Christian.
So the implication is that you're the only one who gets to decide who is and isn't a christian?
If they have a spirit score above 60, they are a Christian and therefore on your side. If their spirit score is below 40, they are the enemy and will try to kill or subvert you.
I'm kinda guessing this might be the problem that most people have with the game. The idea that everyone is either with you, against you, or can be converted is what drives us non-fundamentalists batshit insane.
As far as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc., if you actually look at what transpired there, it had very little to do with true Christianity.
That's funny. Non fundamentalist christians say the exact same thing about fundamentalist christians. "Oh they're not REAL christians". Can't you all just agree that a vaguely worded book with contradictory teachings (oh.. until you "interpret it right"), and multiple translations from an archaic language are often interpreted in wildly different ways? Whenever one of you disagrees with the others actions, you just say "Oh.. see.. THAT guy isn't a REAL christian, he's a fake one that's perverted the teachings of the bible".
The Crusaders didn't just kill non-believers when they sacked Jerusalem. They killed everyone: Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
What a strange statement. The Crusaders would be somehow justified in their actions if they only killed certain people?
As I said, it had very little to do with the religion of Christianity and everything to do with the corruption of man.
There are some that might say a religion that can be exploited in this manner has an inherent problem with it. I'm one of those people.
I think that in the future the way we (slashdot/digg/bloggers) marketed the Wii will be a textbook sample of how viral marketing is done.
And what exactly is that process? From what I've seen it's:
1. Develop product that people want, does something new and interesting that no other product has done before, and at a reasonable price.
2. Produce that product in adequate numbers so people can actually buy the product.
See, the hard part is accumplishing step 1. Most companies would give their eye teeth to be able to find the right combination of features for the right price that people want and is new and different enough that people will talk about it.
The only thing new about "viral marketing" is the name "viral marketing". You could say the same thing about television when it first came out, but no one called having their friends over to watch Milton Bearly "viral marketing".
I'd believe that if it weren't for the extremely large number of pirates operating in Chinese waters. Assuming said pirates aren't operating with the full knowledge of the Government, of course.
And are pirates operating in the Yangtze river where this species of dolphin lives? Also, my guess is pirates know how to play the game so they don't get caught. I kinda doubt the greenpeace guys, or other environmental groups know how to do this.
the Government is unlikely to have made any serious effort to stop a group that saved said Government from political embarrassment or expense, particularly if said Government could claim credit for any success
If I were a Chinese government official, I might be leary of news travelling around that China couldn't stop the extinction of a species that only exists in China, and had to allow outsiders to do it.
Also, how expensive would it have been for any of these groups to mount a full-fledged captive breeding program? I certainly don't know.
My point is that's it's pretty easy to sit on your easy-chair and be critical of outside groups not stopping this. It's quite a bit different when you consider what it actually might take to do something about it. I have a hard time believing it's a simple movie-plot where they sneak into China, round up some dolphins, then high tail it out, with cute dolphins doing tricks on the ship while the credits role. (Throw in a love story, some personal sacrifice, and someone being left behind, and you've got yourself a summer blockbuster).
Let me give you an example. Bees. The American commercial bee population is a monoculture.
This is actually something I know a little about, as my girlfriend took a bee keeping class last spring and wants to keep bees next spring. Commercial bees are NOT a monoculture. There's several different strains you can buy. Some are more resistant to the mite problem. Her instructor is actually developing a strain of "hygenic" bees that clean out hives quickly from mite infestations.
Now, what happens when it's cows or corn? Rice? Wheat?
I'm not sure any of those things are a mono-culture. There may be certain hybrids of each of those that are a mono-culture and that's a potential problem. Apples are an example of a plant that're all mono-culture (Apples trees are all clones of the original tree that produces that type of apple).
Anyway, your argument is kind of silly. A minor species of dolphins dying off has nothing to do with threats to the food supply. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent species from becoming extinct due to us changing the environment.
Mono-cultures of a the food supply are in general a bad idea since it can lead to an enormous shortage if some staple crop fails. But connecting that to dolphin extinction makes no sense, and only sounds like FUD.
Humans are natural, hence they are part of natural selection.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean we have to role over and die everytime a species is threatened. (Which is what the original poster seemed to imply). The natural world isn't some totally uncontrollable force. The extinction of this species proves that because it's a result of human change to the environment.
This false dichotomy between nature and man is, frankly, just so much hippie bullshit.
Hippie? The split between man/nature goes back a LOT longer than the frickin hippies. Personally I've always blamed it on a Judeo-Christian view of the world. It's really more of a religious belief than anything else, since when you question anyone on it they look at you like you just said the moon is made of cheese. Yet they can't provide any evidence that there's a real seperation between man and nature, it's an unquestionable world view. It pisses me off because it leads them to so many false conclusions.
The environmentalists were equally capable of moving the dolphins. The politicians could hardly have stopped them - even if they wanted to. And why would they have wanted to? It would have gotten rid of the problem, would have allowed them to claim credit if the solution worked, and would have cost them nothing if it had failed.
Environmentalists were equally capable of relocating the dolphins. There's so much boat traffic and so much illegal fishing, who would have noticed the Rainbow Warrior flooding a compartment and stuffing a few dolphins in it? The dolphins need a fresh water river and there's not exactly a world shortage of those.
I'm not a big supporter of Greenpeace, but I have to guess that China just might have a little more control over it's borders than you're implying. Are you really suggesting they should have lied to chinese officials and gained entrance to the interrior of China, then mounted a major operation to find.. 10? 20? 50? 100? dolphins required to maintain a large genetic diversity?
I don't know much about Chinese prisons, but I'm guessing they aren't nice places, and China would have no problems throwing anyone they caught "stealing" dolphins into a dark place for 20 years.
You can blame groups outside of China all you like, but the truth is unless China was onboard with the program, it wouldn't have happened.
Wow, do you like live right next the broadcast antenna or something?
No, the transmitters are about 6 miles away. There's one station transmitter that's about 35 miles away which occasionally I need to adjust my ad-hoc antenna to receive.
I've seen digital TV on three occasions at a friends house and on every occasion the signal quality was horrible.
Maybe your friend has a crappy antenna, poor positioning of the antenna, a house that blocks the signal, or a crappy television that doesn't pick up the signal well?
I want your users. I lost internet access three times last year because some dumbass down the hall plugged his router in backwards and was trying to NAT the whole damn building.
Heh. Well I didn't say they understood what's going on at all. In their own home they can only screw up their own crap (and when it doesn't work, they plug it in the other way). In a public LAN they're dangerous as hell.
I had a similar problem a few years ago when some damn fool miss-configured his router with the same IP address as the NAT. It took me half an hour to figure out what he'd done (and confirming it via looking through ARP cache). Another time a different guy setup his router to advertise DHCP for the whole network, routing everything through his router. A third example was when a business on a totally seperate network many miles away. He had the same DSL provider as me and miss-configured his subnet mask (and I believe the DSL modem at that point was bridged). The end effect was that stuff going across his network across town wound up on my network, even though my network wasn't the destination (taking up a LOT of bandwidth). I never really did fully understand that one (though I really don't understand how DSL bridges work either).
Exactly. You can't rely on these scientists.. they're obviously biased because they keep coming up with data that supports what the liberals are saying! Scientist clearly have a liberal bias. I trust the guys without backgrounds in science who write articles in newspapers critical of global warming. They don't have any of that "liberal science bias" because they're not scientists! I just love it when the damn scientists criticize them using their liberal science! It shows the inherent bias they have. Clearly the more you know about global warming, the more biased you are.
At what point did I say botulinum toxin is transmitted through bites or stings?
My guess is right here:
You changed the subject to butulism toxin, then used the pro-noun "it". Since you didn't mention a change in subject it's pretty easy to make the assumption that you're still talking about botulinum toxin. I know I was confused. Try to be more specific in your statements to avoid confusion in the future.
I find it impossible to imagine that most non-technical people are asking for routers/gateways when they purchase their PCs.
Most of them don't know what the hell it is, they just want something that'll allow them to connect multiple computers on the same internet connection.
Do you have any evidence?
Just my own experience. It really doesn't take much of any technical experience to setup a NAT. Your average interface-jockey can certainly plug the thing into the cable modem, and plug his computers into the lan side.
but they're in the minority now.
They provide you with a cable "modem" that acts as a bridge between their network and your PC. The PC gets a globally valid address.
That's true, but there's a large percentage of people with more than one computer/game console/etc in their household, and roadrunner only provides one IP address unless you want to pay big money for business class service. Those people will buy a cheap NAT router at best-buy and plug it in so they can get more than one computer connected to the internet.
Also, DSL modems these days almost universally provide a NAT inside them. All this adds up to most people being behind a NAT. Obviously there's still people NOT behind a NAT, but the numbers are shrinking every day.
Home desktops aren't usually behind firewalls.
That may have been true 10 years ago, but these days most home PCs are at least behind a NAT. Unless you've gone out of your way and configured your NAT to forward all ports to your PC (i.e. a DMZ), outside attacks will be quite useless. The only threat in this case is the user downloading a virus from email, or visiting a compromised website. If you run windows update (well, several times) before you do either of those things, there's no danger.
Presumably this is a different component of conotoxin.
You have a strange definition of activism. We used to just call it complaining and communication. Apparently letting people know what you think is now "activism". Wow, all those times I send food or beer back for poor quality I didn't know I was an "activist".
Is that kind of like Wiley-Coyote knowing about gravity, and suddenly being affected by it?
I actually see the effects of overly-compressed digital video all the time, as I have satellite TV. It's occasionally annoying, but not really a big deal. I haven't watched a lot of over-the-air digital TV, but I've yet to see artifacts, only poor signal quality from a station that's 35 miles away on my ad-hoc antenna.
I bought a new TV a few months ago. I couldn't afford a ueber-expensive HDTV, but the TV I did buy is capable of receiving digital signals and downconverting them to the resolution a normal TV is capable of (the new digital standard in called ATSC).
The digital signal is really quite excellent. Analog signals have always been snowy, fuzzy, and filled with distortion. The digital signal is clean and crisp. I don't even have some special antenna either, I chinced out and cut off the shielding from an old coaxial cable. Works perfectly if you position it right.
In fact, all televisions sold in the US above 25 inches are required by the FCC to be able to receive digital signals. Next year on March 1st that requirement will go down to 13 inches or larger. Of course that doesn't mean that all retailers in in compliance. I'd recommend if you see a TV 25 inches or larger being sold that doesn't have a digital tuner in it that you complain to the management of the store, and maybe the FCC.
Now we know how our grandparents felt when broadcasters switched to a color signal. Their old black-and-white tv's (which couldn't read the color signal at all in many/most cases) suddenly became excessively-large paperweights.
Huh? Black and white sets work just fine, and always have since NTSC was developed. The color signal standard was developed to be backwards compatible with black and white sets. Essentially the color information is transmitted on a different frequency, and the television combines this information with the black and white information to create a picture. Black and white sets were produced and sold for many years after color sets became available because color was quite a bit more expensive.
Sorry, but you're 100% wrong in your entire post. There's no "black and white TVs reads the color signal and converts it into grayscale". Maybe you should learn something about the NTSC standard before you post?
I know slashdot's readership has a decidedly socalist leaning about many things, but what is wrong with people deciding to profit from what they have created? Why is foregoing said profit considered "noble"?
Nothing. It's not really profit that's the issue, it's mass-commercialization and expanding a site beyond the original scope, and the drive not to just make some money, but to make as much money as you possibly can.
Those goals often times are in direct opposition to providing a usefull service to the community. There's nothing noble about not making money, or anything wrong with making money. There is something noble about putting your goals of service above the goals of profit. It doesn't mean that Craigslist can't make a profit, it just means you don't throw everything else away for a drive to make more and more money.
Not that I have a problem with either, but the majority of the traffic has to be to the escorts, swinging, and deciant listings.
Those are certainly what shocks people, but a quick look at numbers doesn't really support that theory. For Minneapolis I see 28,000 personals listings (most of which have no "deviant" component to them), 78,000 for sale listings, 12,000 services (a small percentage of which includes hookers), 17,000 housing listings, and 7,000 jobs listings. The numbers in each category vary with each city (which is interesting), but none have a large portion of hookers, swingers, or "deviants".
From what I've seen, most people seem to use craiglist to sell stuff, free personals ads, find apartments, or find jobs. Personally I've used it to find a job, find an apartment, and buy and sell things (already have the girlfriend situation taken care of). I've got friends who've used it to sell stuff, and find "love", but I've never known anyone that's used it to find hookers, swingers or "deviant sex". Maybe everyone I know is doing that and keeping it secret, but I doubt it. Obviously there's people that do that, but the number of ads don't show it's anywhere near the majority.