There's a big difference between controlling your emotions and simply knowing yourself well enough to control what you do based on your emotions. Everyone gets angry once in a while - IMHO what you do when you are is an indicator over how well you know yourself (and, when partners are involved) and others.
To hell with karma but amen to that - I've not had a problem with getting sound "working" in Linux since I was using RH 7.1, as logn as "working" consists of getting sound from things like music players, random beeps and movie players all working nicely.
However, as soon as you stray away from the "I want sound to come out of my speakers" to more complex arrangements, you quickly get into trouble. For instance, I recently bought a 5.1 receiver for my HTPC and hooked it up via a TOSLINK cable... but as soon as I enabled surround output in apps like xine, I started getting god-awful crackling. Figured that cos it was a reasonably new card ALSA probably had crappy support for it, so upgraded mythbuntu... which stopped SPDIF output completely, only giving me HDMI output options (I won't use HDMI on principle and routing a cable all the way to my receiver would be prohibitively expensive). Cue a downgrade.
Solution? Some magical configuration of the cryptic asound.conf, apparently, after I've set up my own special mixers, which still didn't fix the issue despite me spending hours finding out what all those parameters do. Compare and contrast to the windows machine which plugs in and works. Annoying.
There's loads about linux I utterly love. Setting up sound is definitely not one of them.
I dunno, I'm a brit and I'd tend to agree with him. No-one ever made a global empire of nearly a quarter of the world just by tucking into some jam and scones at high tea. Pretty much every empire has revolved around some clever technological invention, followed swiftly by a bunch of people acting like cnuts and using said invention to clobber a load of people into submission.
"Culturally British" is one of those stupidly ambiguous terms that can generally mean whatever you want it to though. Every country has some heinous atrocity in its past that you could say was "cultural", similarly every country has good qualities. My identity of british "culture" is tolerance and acceptance of people (even those who aren't brandishing very sharp slices of mango), but I'm sure there's plenty of people, especially brits and americans, who'd scoff at that.
Coming up next - homeopathic SCUBA gear. We bubble some oxygen through a bucket of water, then pour the water down your throat and gaffer tape your mouth shut before throwing you in the pacific. Since the water in your lungs contains a memory of oxygen, it'll be able to provide your body the same respiratory nourishment as oxygen for a near infinite amount of time. I'm posing this from a boat fifty miles out from san francisco bay, we've had people in the water for over a week now who've not needed to come up for air - that proves it works!
I hereby proclaim that ACID tests should no longer be the gold standard for obscure CSS edge cases, and instead we should wait for the next generation of browsers that can render slashdot correctly - since over the last few months I've not used any browser that's rendered a page the same way in any other browser;)
For the 99% of us that only read PDF docs, it's the fastest and least resource hungry PDF viewer I've ever used, plus the benefit of open sauce. IIRC even Foxit's fallen foul of some of the same vulns as acrobat.
FYI I've also got a full fledged version of Acrobat for when I do tech writing or annotate some of our existing docs, and I've never noticed any difference between the presentation of sumatra and acrobat, nor any problems with stupid forms (although they didn't use JS). Recommend everyone gives it a whirl even if just to find out whether they can live without bells and whistles.
Tip: to get it to remember your default view (fit width, continuous in my instance) open sumatra, set your preferences and then those sumatra. Otherwise it remembers individual view settings based on the file path.
Assuming, of course, the programming is worth it and is unavailable elsewhere.
Your comment made me think of today's Daily Mash:)
SEVEN million people in the UK are illegally downloading the sort of music and films you wouldn't pay for even as you heard the ominous click of a gun being cocked. According to the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property, illegal downloaders are accessing material that could be worth up to £120bn a year if it was any good.
SAN providers typically load up their consumer hard drives in a custom caddy with a custom firmware, and will only support you if you're using all-vendor-supplied hard drives. IT staffers like myself are basically blackmailed into paying a small fortune for spares like this because to say "we saved $10,000 buying commodity hard drives, but now the SAN has broken and the support company nor the vendor will support us so I'm afraid we're going to need to start again from scratch" is career suicide.
FWIW, pretty much every SAN vendor has their customers over a barrel like this, it's a captive market for one of the most important appliances an enterprise can buy, so vendor switching rarely works.
Proof of the Wintel synergy - now we know the real reason behind the Pentium FP bug and the Excel 2007 calculation bugs was merely to exploit scenarios exactly like this!
if [$filename == 'Intel Antitrust Fine Calculations.xlsx']; then $fine_total = $fine_total/10 fi
The more imaginative of you will also be curious to find out that Excel is also written in BASH... but that's another story.
Like it or not, those that give the Ribbon a real chance like it.
Only the real people who give it a real chance will agree that it's rubbish.
See how pointless an argument it becomes when we both say that our own opinions are the "real" ones? I have plenty of people on my team who gave the ribbon interface a "real" chance during their forced company pilot (9 months), and none of them thought it made them more productive in any way, shape or form. YMMV and we can argue anecdata all night, but please don't assert opinions as facts.
Even for people with fast connections and fast computers - I lost count of the times I've had to wait 30+ seconds for a page to load purely because of some overloaded ad server sometime back in 2002.
Note to site admins: if people routinely have to wait stupidly long times whilst browsing your site purely due to mandatory ad placement, they'll eventually stop coming. It was this sort of behaviour that led me to using ad blocking tools in the first place.
Not when you *have* to view the flash on the crap flash site, and it causes your browser to behave like a european swallow carrying a coconut. Flashblock works great for all the terrible, terrible misuses of it on t'interweb, but when it's a necessary evil it'd also be nice to have a browser that takes reasonable steps to protect itself.
Pretty much any good RTG fuel will be a "rare isotope" - what makes a good RTG is that it gives off a large amount of heat over a reasonably long time period. Large amounts of heat equate to highly radioactive isotopes with short half lives - for instance, Pu 238 is used because it has a half life of ~90 years, compared to 239 which has a HL of about 24000. Strontium 90 is another prominent RTG isotope, collected from fuel reprocessing, but it's not a patch on Pu238 (much shorter HL of about 30 years). Pu 238 is also a pure alpha emitter, and its decay product is U 234, also an alpha emitter, meaning it requires the least amount of radioactive shielding of any of the popular RTG isotopes.
Obviously, since every heavier-than-iron element on earth must have been created before the solar system was formed, highly radioactive elements like Pu 238 can *only* be formed in reactors, because even if they had existed on earth, they would have decayed into stable forms (like lead) long before life began. So our only option is to create these "unnatural" forms of fuel ourselves.
And, unfortunately, there's nothing currently on the horizon that can create the power density of an RTG in the same space and weight and for such long periods. You'd need something along the lines of a pocket fusion reactor to solve the problem before we can take harmful isotopes out of the equation altogether.
Even if I believed energy transfer via laser were feasible, you'd require LoS for it to work, and getting a laser (presumably an orbital or lagrange one so as to avoid atmospheric distortion) to reliably track and hit an object as small as a probes' solar sail some half billion miles away is, to me, a task so phenomenally complicated and prone to failure that I'd discount the theory.
Not to mention, the weight of such a system to transfer concentrated solar energy into a battery to power the system long enough until the next "refuleing" would likely weigh far more than an RTG, plus would also require power itself to track the laser.
Seriously, we don't risk sending kilos of Pu 238 into the atmosphere just because we can... it really is the best option until Mr. Fusion comes along:)
Doing things with two clicks is SO web 1.0 - with One-Click Moderation you're a part of the new and exciting world of up-to-the-minute moderating technology. Here at Slamazon we're always looking to ways to improve your ability to incorrectly moderate reactionary posts in an apparently successful attempt to court controversy and flamewars.
Note to marketing: please don't mention how reading a thread on slashdot 2.0 now requires eleventy billion clicks and sliding ineffable slidey things around, instead concentrate on how users need no longer tire themselves with the appallingly stone aged scrollwheel.
Tell me about it - I'm amazed how they managed to make such a complete mess of what would have been the first western depiction of Stalingrad, itself easily one of the most iconic battles and ripe for cinematic exploration. Heck, even the clichéd gung-ho "stereotyped good guys vs. stereotyped bad guys have a ruddy good killing match with lots of CGI intestines" would have been better than what I'll call the "chick flick" treatment it received - sorry, but for a movie about Stalingrad not to turn the stomach at regular intervals was just wrong. Yeah, appeal to a wider audience, maximise returns etc etc... but to me you're just a small step away from giving Schindler's List comedy sound effects.
Although reading the reviews of some of the people on IMDB who gave it 9 or 10 stars is pretty sickening...
Seriously people, if you liked the look of the film and the idea of Stalingrad, please go out and read a book on it. The images you'll see in your head and the emotions you feel will leave you feeling cheated out of the 2 1/2 hours you spent watching that film. Famous excerpt from one of the war diaries of a german soldier:
We have fought during 15 days for a single house, with mortars, grenades, machine guns, and bayonets. Already by the third day 54 German corpses are strewn in the cellars, on the landings, and the staircases. The front is a corridor between burnt-out rooms; it is the thin ceiling between two floors. Help comes from neighbouring houses by fire escapes and chimneys. There is a ceaseless struggle from noon to night. From story to story, faces black with sweat, we bombard each other with grenades in the middle of explosions, clouds of dust and smoke, heaps of mortar, floods of blood, fragments of furniture and human beings. Ask any soldier what half an hour of hand-to-hand struggle means in such a fight. And imagine Stalingrad; 80 days and 80 nights of hand-to-hand struggles. The street is no longer measured by meters but by corpses... Stalingrad is no longer a town. By day it is an enormous cloud of burning, blinding smoke; it is a vast furnace lit by the reflection of the flames. And when night arrives, one of those scorching, howling, bleeding nights, the dogs plunge into the Volga and swim desperately to gain the other bank. The nights of Stalingrad are a terror for them. Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones can not bear it for long; only men endure.
/slinks off to watch Ice Cold in Alex and remember how awesome war movies used to be. Something about getting off lawns too.
This would be the film about Stalingrad, probably the most important battle of the entire war in europe, and it eventually gets *one* big-budget western movie about it... that's terribly miscast at best and utterly inaccurate drivel at worst? It's more of a crappy love story with a war gaffer-taped to the side than anything else, which is amazing considering it's based on true events.
Hopefully I'm not alone in thinking that the superlative Downfall/Der Untergang paints a far better picture for "humanised" war movies than any other modern film, and it even bears more than just a passing resemblance to what actually happened.
Not to say the into to EatG isn't awesome though... it's only when the actors start talking that I begin to feel ill;)
Why is this marked as a troll? It's well documented that the Soviet army was, especially at the start of the war, terribly equipped and horribly trained (thanks mainly to Stalin decapitating the army in his many purges prior to the outbreak of WW2, leaving no effective chain of command or indeed any combat experience) - witness how poorly the Russians fared against the Finns in the opening stages of the war.
And during Barbarossa, Russia literally threw men at the germans whilst they were still gearing up their war machine. Where they could they retreated eastwards, where they couldn't they fought with whatever they could find. Even when supplies did start becoming available, supplies to "hot spots" like Stalingrad were kept to a trickle as part of the military strategy that culminated at Kursk, resulting in the annihilation of the german 6th and the beginning of the end for Hitler.
Statistically, the russians lost ~13% (23 million) of their population during WW2, second behind Poland with 16% (about 5.5 million dead) - remember lots of Poles who had been lucky enough to escape were first on the beaches of Normandy too - in fact most places in eastern europe suffered much higher rates of civilian death due to internment in labour camps (as the slavic races were considered "subhuman" by the believers in Hitler's regime); Russia's death toll was 50% civilian - much of in labour camps, much of it due to Russia's lack of regard for individuals safety and a callous attitude towards the individual that was, some say, inherent under Stalin's communism. Witness his choice to not evacuate Stalingrad once it became evident that it was going to be a cataclysmic battle - "they will fight harder for a live city than an empty one" - using the lives of the inhabitants as incentive for the soldiers. Similarly, Germans were told that the Soviet's lack of regard for their own was symptomatic of their animal nature. That's the sort of thing that happens when two of the world's greatest fascists go head-to-head in a battle that was more about their personal pride than anything else. Stalin could just afford to lose alot more men than Hitler.
Comparatively, both the US and the UK lost less than 1% of their population. Not saying that the Russian contribution wasn't anything other than catastrophic for Hitler's regime, but alot of the deaths *could* have been prevented had Russia been better prepared (which, in turn, would have relied on Stalin not having shot all of his best men), and neither Hitler nor Stalin were too worried about the lives of their troops by the time of Stalingrad. Parent is spot on about soldier deaths though; Russian weaponry and military expertise were in colossally short supply up until the closing stages of the war in europe.
Mods - if you can't tell the difference between a troll and WW2 military history, please use your points on something else. Even better, use your time to educate yourself on one of the bloodiest and most epoch-defining events of the last thousand years which *still* serves as a reminder why letting fascist bastards get into a position of power over others frequently causes those others to die quite horribly.
On the vista machines I've used where people hadn't found out how to turn the sidebar off, I found it a colossal waste of space - as others have said, they're all tools that I, nor most people I know, would use often enough to merit their continual presence on screen. Heck, most of them can be done just as quickly in the browser;
ctrl+t F6 g 20usd in pounds sterling
ctrl+w
To me the sidebar is just another example (IMHO) of Vista's whole "Shit, we have a thousand developers and this still looks alot like XP... err... I know, I'll add a Direct3D clock!"-syndrome (SWHATDATSLALXPEIKIAADCS for short). But then, I'm one of these people who just isn't going to like Vista because I fail to understand the point of curved button borders on a pixelated screen, and thus I'm not hip and froody enough.:)
Depends on the recipient - it produced a high in the brains of those who could not understand it. It's whole point was that it was a "targeted" virus that would only affect L Bob Rife's nemesis of people who could control his precious information, using a) religious ceremonies and b) drug use as addiction vectors with c) being the neurological payload of snow crash represented visually on a screen/in the metaverse.
...who has no idea what "shake like a polaroid" means? Last I knew, a polaroid was a instant camera using chemical-based films, and was not intimately connected with geological stressing.
Can someone please demonstrate what a shaking polaroid looks like so I don't feel like I'm missing out on hacker lingo.
Slashdot Mirror
Why use the d, p, or a words when saying "cunt" is equally effective?
There's a big difference between controlling your emotions and simply knowing yourself well enough to control what you do based on your emotions. Everyone gets angry once in a while - IMHO what you do when you are is an indicator over how well you know yourself (and, when partners are involved) and others.
To hell with karma but amen to that - I've not had a problem with getting sound "working" in Linux since I was using RH 7.1, as logn as "working" consists of getting sound from things like music players, random beeps and movie players all working nicely.
However, as soon as you stray away from the "I want sound to come out of my speakers" to more complex arrangements, you quickly get into trouble. For instance, I recently bought a 5.1 receiver for my HTPC and hooked it up via a TOSLINK cable... but as soon as I enabled surround output in apps like xine, I started getting god-awful crackling. Figured that cos it was a reasonably new card ALSA probably had crappy support for it, so upgraded mythbuntu... which stopped SPDIF output completely, only giving me HDMI output options (I won't use HDMI on principle and routing a cable all the way to my receiver would be prohibitively expensive). Cue a downgrade.
Solution? Some magical configuration of the cryptic asound.conf, apparently, after I've set up my own special mixers, which still didn't fix the issue despite me spending hours finding out what all those parameters do. Compare and contrast to the windows machine which plugs in and works. Annoying.
There's loads about linux I utterly love. Setting up sound is definitely not one of them.
Your sig mad my iPhon cordump. Stv Jobs nds to snd you in for rducation in th ways of Appl.
I dunno, I'm a brit and I'd tend to agree with him. No-one ever made a global empire of nearly a quarter of the world just by tucking into some jam and scones at high tea. Pretty much every empire has revolved around some clever technological invention, followed swiftly by a bunch of people acting like cnuts and using said invention to clobber a load of people into submission.
"Culturally British" is one of those stupidly ambiguous terms that can generally mean whatever you want it to though. Every country has some heinous atrocity in its past that you could say was "cultural", similarly every country has good qualities. My identity of british "culture" is tolerance and acceptance of people (even those who aren't brandishing very sharp slices of mango), but I'm sure there's plenty of people, especially brits and americans, who'd scoff at that.
Coming up next - homeopathic SCUBA gear. We bubble some oxygen through a bucket of water, then pour the water down your throat and gaffer tape your mouth shut before throwing you in the pacific. Since the water in your lungs contains a memory of oxygen, it'll be able to provide your body the same respiratory nourishment as oxygen for a near infinite amount of time. I'm posing this from a boat fifty miles out from san francisco bay, we've had people in the water for over a week now who've not needed to come up for air - that proves it works!
I hereby proclaim that ACID tests should no longer be the gold standard for obscure CSS edge cases, and instead we should wait for the next generation of browsers that can render slashdot correctly - since over the last few months I've not used any browser that's rendered a page the same way in any other browser ;)
I also used to use Foxit, but found an even more lightweight reader in the form of Sumatra PDF:
http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html
For the 99% of us that only read PDF docs, it's the fastest and least resource hungry PDF viewer I've ever used, plus the benefit of open sauce. IIRC even Foxit's fallen foul of some of the same vulns as acrobat.
FYI I've also got a full fledged version of Acrobat for when I do tech writing or annotate some of our existing docs, and I've never noticed any difference between the presentation of sumatra and acrobat, nor any problems with stupid forms (although they didn't use JS). Recommend everyone gives it a whirl even if just to find out whether they can live without bells and whistles.
Tip: to get it to remember your default view (fit width, continuous in my instance) open sumatra, set your preferences and then those sumatra. Otherwise it remembers individual view settings based on the file path.
Assuming, of course, the programming is worth it and is unavailable elsewhere.
Your comment made me think of today's Daily Mash :)
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/seven-million-people-downloading-stuff-you-wouldn't-pay-for-if-there-was-a-gun-to-your-head-200905291790/
When government officials can detain you whenever they want, they're the terrorists.
SAN providers typically load up their consumer hard drives in a custom caddy with a custom firmware, and will only support you if you're using all-vendor-supplied hard drives. IT staffers like myself are basically blackmailed into paying a small fortune for spares like this because to say "we saved $10,000 buying commodity hard drives, but now the SAN has broken and the support company nor the vendor will support us so I'm afraid we're going to need to start again from scratch" is career suicide.
FWIW, pretty much every SAN vendor has their customers over a barrel like this, it's a captive market for one of the most important appliances an enterprise can buy, so vendor switching rarely works.
Proof of the Wintel synergy - now we know the real reason behind the Pentium FP bug and the Excel 2007 calculation bugs was merely to exploit scenarios exactly like this!
if [$filename == 'Intel Antitrust Fine Calculations.xlsx']; then
$fine_total = $fine_total/10
fi
The more imaginative of you will also be curious to find out that Excel is also written in BASH... but that's another story.
Like it or not, those that give the Ribbon a real chance like it.
Only the real people who give it a real chance will agree that it's rubbish.
See how pointless an argument it becomes when we both say that our own opinions are the "real" ones? I have plenty of people on my team who gave the ribbon interface a "real" chance during their forced company pilot (9 months), and none of them thought it made them more productive in any way, shape or form. YMMV and we can argue anecdata all night, but please don't assert opinions as facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
Even for people with fast connections and fast computers - I lost count of the times I've had to wait 30+ seconds for a page to load purely because of some overloaded ad server sometime back in 2002.
Note to site admins: if people routinely have to wait stupidly long times whilst browsing your site purely due to mandatory ad placement, they'll eventually stop coming. It was this sort of behaviour that led me to using ad blocking tools in the first place.
Not when you *have* to view the flash on the crap flash site, and it causes your browser to behave like a european swallow carrying a coconut. Flashblock works great for all the terrible, terrible misuses of it on t'interweb, but when it's a necessary evil it'd also be nice to have a browser that takes reasonable steps to protect itself.
Pretty much any good RTG fuel will be a "rare isotope" - what makes a good RTG is that it gives off a large amount of heat over a reasonably long time period. Large amounts of heat equate to highly radioactive isotopes with short half lives - for instance, Pu 238 is used because it has a half life of ~90 years, compared to 239 which has a HL of about 24000. Strontium 90 is another prominent RTG isotope, collected from fuel reprocessing, but it's not a patch on Pu238 (much shorter HL of about 30 years). Pu 238 is also a pure alpha emitter, and its decay product is U 234, also an alpha emitter, meaning it requires the least amount of radioactive shielding of any of the popular RTG isotopes.
Obviously, since every heavier-than-iron element on earth must have been created before the solar system was formed, highly radioactive elements like Pu 238 can *only* be formed in reactors, because even if they had existed on earth, they would have decayed into stable forms (like lead) long before life began. So our only option is to create these "unnatural" forms of fuel ourselves.
And, unfortunately, there's nothing currently on the horizon that can create the power density of an RTG in the same space and weight and for such long periods. You'd need something along the lines of a pocket fusion reactor to solve the problem before we can take harmful isotopes out of the equation altogether.
Even if I believed energy transfer via laser were feasible, you'd require LoS for it to work, and getting a laser (presumably an orbital or lagrange one so as to avoid atmospheric distortion) to reliably track and hit an object as small as a probes' solar sail some half billion miles away is, to me, a task so phenomenally complicated and prone to failure that I'd discount the theory.
Not to mention, the weight of such a system to transfer concentrated solar energy into a battery to power the system long enough until the next "refuleing" would likely weigh far more than an RTG, plus would also require power itself to track the laser.
Seriously, we don't risk sending kilos of Pu 238 into the atmosphere just because we can... it really is the best option until Mr. Fusion comes along :)
Doing things with two clicks is SO web 1.0 - with One-Click Moderation you're a part of the new and exciting world of up-to-the-minute moderating technology. Here at Slamazon we're always looking to ways to improve your ability to incorrectly moderate reactionary posts in an apparently successful attempt to court controversy and flamewars.
Note to marketing: please don't mention how reading a thread on slashdot 2.0 now requires eleventy billion clicks and sliding ineffable slidey things around, instead concentrate on how users need no longer tire themselves with the appallingly stone aged scrollwheel.
Coming soon... the AutoTroll-a-tron!
Tell me about it - I'm amazed how they managed to make such a complete mess of what would have been the first western depiction of Stalingrad, itself easily one of the most iconic battles and ripe for cinematic exploration. Heck, even the clichéd gung-ho "stereotyped good guys vs. stereotyped bad guys have a ruddy good killing match with lots of CGI intestines" would have been better than what I'll call the "chick flick" treatment it received - sorry, but for a movie about Stalingrad not to turn the stomach at regular intervals was just wrong. Yeah, appeal to a wider audience, maximise returns etc etc... but to me you're just a small step away from giving Schindler's List comedy sound effects.
Although reading the reviews of some of the people on IMDB who gave it 9 or 10 stars is pretty sickening...
Seriously people, if you liked the look of the film and the idea of Stalingrad, please go out and read a book on it. The images you'll see in your head and the emotions you feel will leave you feeling cheated out of the 2 1/2 hours you spent watching that film. Famous excerpt from one of the war diaries of a german soldier:
This would be the film about Stalingrad, probably the most important battle of the entire war in europe, and it eventually gets *one* big-budget western movie about it... that's terribly miscast at best and utterly inaccurate drivel at worst? It's more of a crappy love story with a war gaffer-taped to the side than anything else, which is amazing considering it's based on true events.
Hopefully I'm not alone in thinking that the superlative Downfall/Der Untergang paints a far better picture for "humanised" war movies than any other modern film, and it even bears more than just a passing resemblance to what actually happened.
Not to say the into to EatG isn't awesome though... it's only when the actors start talking that I begin to feel ill ;)
Damnit, replying to myself, but it's not marked as a troll anymore. Guess I should type less next time ;)
Why is this marked as a troll? It's well documented that the Soviet army was, especially at the start of the war, terribly equipped and horribly trained (thanks mainly to Stalin decapitating the army in his many purges prior to the outbreak of WW2, leaving no effective chain of command or indeed any combat experience) - witness how poorly the Russians fared against the Finns in the opening stages of the war.
And during Barbarossa, Russia literally threw men at the germans whilst they were still gearing up their war machine. Where they could they retreated eastwards, where they couldn't they fought with whatever they could find. Even when supplies did start becoming available, supplies to "hot spots" like Stalingrad were kept to a trickle as part of the military strategy that culminated at Kursk, resulting in the annihilation of the german 6th and the beginning of the end for Hitler.
Statistically, the russians lost ~13% (23 million) of their population during WW2, second behind Poland with 16% (about 5.5 million dead) - remember lots of Poles who had been lucky enough to escape were first on the beaches of Normandy too - in fact most places in eastern europe suffered much higher rates of civilian death due to internment in labour camps (as the slavic races were considered "subhuman" by the believers in Hitler's regime); Russia's death toll was 50% civilian - much of in labour camps, much of it due to Russia's lack of regard for individuals safety and a callous attitude towards the individual that was, some say, inherent under Stalin's communism. Witness his choice to not evacuate Stalingrad once it became evident that it was going to be a cataclysmic battle - "they will fight harder for a live city than an empty one" - using the lives of the inhabitants as incentive for the soldiers. Similarly, Germans were told that the Soviet's lack of regard for their own was symptomatic of their animal nature. That's the sort of thing that happens when two of the world's greatest fascists go head-to-head in a battle that was more about their personal pride than anything else. Stalin could just afford to lose alot more men than Hitler.
Comparatively, both the US and the UK lost less than 1% of their population. Not saying that the Russian contribution wasn't anything other than catastrophic for Hitler's regime, but alot of the deaths *could* have been prevented had Russia been better prepared (which, in turn, would have relied on Stalin not having shot all of his best men), and neither Hitler nor Stalin were too worried about the lives of their troops by the time of Stalingrad. Parent is spot on about soldier deaths though; Russian weaponry and military expertise were in colossally short supply up until the closing stages of the war in europe.
Mods - if you can't tell the difference between a troll and WW2 military history, please use your points on something else. Even better, use your time to educate yourself on one of the bloodiest and most epoch-defining events of the last thousand years which *still* serves as a reminder why letting fascist bastards get into a position of power over others frequently causes those others to die quite horribly.
On the vista machines I've used where people hadn't found out how to turn the sidebar off, I found it a colossal waste of space - as others have said, they're all tools that I, nor most people I know, would use often enough to merit their continual presence on screen. Heck, most of them can be done just as quickly in the browser;
ctrl+t
F6
g 20usd in pounds sterling
ctrl+w
To me the sidebar is just another example (IMHO) of Vista's whole "Shit, we have a thousand developers and this still looks alot like XP... err... I know, I'll add a Direct3D clock!"-syndrome (SWHATDATSLALXPEIKIAADCS for short). But then, I'm one of these people who just isn't going to like Vista because I fail to understand the point of curved button borders on a pixelated screen, and thus I'm not hip and froody enough. :)
Depends on the recipient - it produced a high in the brains of those who could not understand it. It's whole point was that it was a "targeted" virus that would only affect L Bob Rife's nemesis of people who could control his precious information, using a) religious ceremonies and b) drug use as addiction vectors with c) being the neurological payload of snow crash represented visually on a screen/in the metaverse.
...who has no idea what "shake like a polaroid" means? Last I knew, a polaroid was a instant camera using chemical-based films, and was not intimately connected with geological stressing.
Can someone please demonstrate what a shaking polaroid looks like so I don't feel like I'm missing out on hacker lingo.