Considering that PS2s are still selling (strangely) well and getting new game releases, it's unlikely Sony will restore BC (even if only software emulation) to the PS3 platform.
I've heard that argument before, but I don't get it. If everyone who were going to buy a PS2 decided to get a PS3 instead, I figure Sony would be ecstatic. I would think that they would much rather sell PS3's than PS2's, so they can compete with the current generation of consoles. After all isn't that the point of introducing backwards compatibility? They made the PS2 able to play PS1 games so that people who were interested or already had a large PS1 game library would buy PS2s. They made the PS3 (initially) compatible with the PS2 for the same reason so that people would buy PS3's.
The only reason to not have BC is the exactly the opposite. If the PS2 was not selling well, and no new games were coming out, and there was no interest in it at all, then they shouldn't include it because it would increase the cost to produce the PS3 for no reason.
News flash - these "sporting events" miss the entire point of sports - which is to get your obese butt off the couch and have some fun doing something more physical than popping the top off a King Can. Sports shouldn't be a "spectator sport". Just like boxing shouldn't be a sport, period - not when the goal is to beat the other person senseless. Then again, most people can't even be arsed to spend more than 15 minutes a day doing anything more strenuous than walking to the fridge.
I would say that's a bit close-minded. Sure, the points of you participating in sports is to do something fun that is physical. The point of spectator sports is that some humans, not all, can achieve a level of performance that the majority of us can't (regardless of how much we were to train). It can be very enjoyable to watch a competition between the absolute best of our race in a particular event.
As for boxing, the goal isn't simply to beat the other person senseless. It's to avoid letting the other person beat you senseless. If you participate, you accept to take on the same risks as your opponent. You know what those risks are and you're willing to take them on. I believe consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want, and it doesn't cease to be a sport just because it seems tasteless to you. That's fine, and it's great that you value human life to that extent, but all that it means is that it's not a sport you're interested in participating or spectating. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a problem with the sport itself, it's just your personal preference due to your personal beliefs.
There was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. Then we learned about galactic rotation, and added dark matter. Then we learned about expansion, and tossed in inflation and dark energy. Then we learned about the missing gravity waves. What will we add next?
Hmm...whatever's necessary to explain the observations?
Let's try the more accurateThere was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. It fit a great many observations, but we discovered it didn't explain everything. Then we added some things to it and now it explained more of our observations, but it still didn't explain everything. Then we added more things and it explained yet more observations...
That's the way it's supposed to work. As long as the modifications to the theory contain falsifiable predictions, it's all good. They can always be removed or modified again if a new observation doesn't fit the predictions. The model always gets better and better.
The computer was, I think, obviously clean and well taken care of; but the missing screw was probably enough to void the warranty
No, no it wasn't. They would like you to think that merely opening the computer voids the warranty, but they're not legally allowed to do so (in the US and probably most other places) and you can open it and replace parts at your leisure. They can only deny your warranty if they can track the problem to something you did (like the guy above who mentioned somebody cracking the case while trying to open the laptop). Whatever new parts you add are also, of course, not covered by the warranty, so if they failed, they won't replace it (again, of course).
I sent my laptop in with a different hard drive (didn't want to send them my data), told the Apple "genius" this and he tried to tell me that my applecare warranty was voided and they would charge me if he sent it in for repairs. I told him that I knew my rights and to send it anyway. So he makes a note in the repair order saying that he "tried to tell customer warranty was void." Of course, despite all this, the laptop was mailed back to me, repaired, at no charge. Not because they were being nice, but because it does not void the warranty.
I'm pretty sure the employee believed what he was saying, and I think it's possible he had been purposefully misinformed in order to turn away customers who would be scared to pay for repairs and wouldn't send it in.
When I was going through my major coursework for my BS in Computer Science through Georgia Southern University, they were still using Pascal to teach programming, even though C was one of the major programming languages at the time (this was around 1998).
Frankly, I wish they were still doing that. Pascal is an awesome teaching language and it's very structured so it helps in teaching good practice. Once you learn how to program ONE language you've learned them all. Syntax doesn't really matter, worst case scenario you keep a reference book at your side so you can look it up.
In Computer Science, the focus is necessarily on/algorithms/ and/algorithm development/, irrespective of technology. But, especially with technology oriented subjects, they also need to stay current with the times! It's great that Computer Science graduates know what a bubble sort is. What employers want to know is CAN YOU IMPLEMENT IT FOR ME IN A MODERN WAY?
First of all, if you can implement bubble sort in pascal, you can do it C#. It's the same thing, syntax really doesn't matter. Second, no employer cares if you can implement a bubble sort in the modern language. In fact, they'd rather you didn't, and instead used the efficient sort libraries that comes with every modern language, if the work is that simple. If, on the other hand, the work is complex and you're going to be sorting the amount of data that google is sorting, neither the bubble nor the default library sort is going to help you. There they want to know if you understand what the problems are, which sorting algorithms can fit you better given storage and speed trade-offs, which algorithms allow you to split the work and parallelize across thousands of stations while keeping network traffic as low as possible, etc. In other words, they need to know you understand the theory.
Universities need more vocational training in their curriculum. If they'd ditch all the useless liberal arts crap it wouldn't even take longer.
Actually, they need to reverse the trend of turning universities into vocational schools and increase the requirements to go outside your field. When you're a freshman and sophomore you feel like those classes are just getting in your way, but you really come to appreciate them by the time you become an upperclassman. It will give you a break from all the stuff that's driving you mad, and if you're lucky, you may even learn something in another discipline that will actually apply to yours. A person in computer science that's taking some psychology classes could probably use what they learned in psych to design better UI's or even ways to help minimize security issues by better understanding how social engineering works.
Oh please, this has nothing to do with lobbyists having more power that the people. The voters clearly do not care about this issue. During this last presidential election process, did anyone at any campaign event or town hall ever ask about eliminating or reducing the penalties for copyright infringement? No. People just do [not] see this as a problem.
During campaigns, people only care about the issues they've been told to care about by corporations (in the way of big media) and lobbyists (in the way of campaign commercials). That's why lobbyists are so powerful. Look it up: whoever spends the most money on their campaign generally wins, save a few exceptions which are probably statistically insignificant (I say probably because I haven't actually done a statistical analysis to be sure...either way, it's the vast minority who manage to win without spending as much).
The questions people ask at town halls are the questions that Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN pundits discuss every single night while trying to get people riled up in favor of against the pet issues of the management. They're about the accusations and misrepresentations they hear on negative advertisement every day. People are, in general, easily manipulated. I'm not excluding you and I from this, it's not a problem of the "less intelligent sheeple" or whatever. It's a condition of human psychology and it applies to all of us. Ever see the ad for a pizza and suddenly become hungry when you weren't before? Why do you think coca cola keeps advertising coke? Because they think there are people who haven't heard of it left? Hell, you can see it happen on slashdot, and if the issues on slashdot were what the majority of the population were being exposed to, you can bet your ass those are the questions that would be asked in town hall meetings.
You're suffering from the slashdot delusion - the belief that stuff you know nothing about is trivially easy.
He's not saying it's easy, he's saying there was no artistry involved. If I decided tomorrow that I would copy by hand the entire work of Shakespeare with pen and paper, it would be a pain in the ass, it would take me a long time, and it would be hard. It still shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted because the artistic value of the resulting work is still solely the words of Shakespeare. My handwriting, no matter how good it is, isn't adding anything to it. The fact that it was painstakingly time-consuming doesn't mean anything was added to the work.
If, on the other hand, I copied the work of Shakespeare out of order in such a way as to make the juxtaposed dialog between plays humorous in a way Shakespeare did not intend them to be, that's a new copyrightable work. If I copied everything straight through in such a way that the text formed a picture, as in a montage of sorts, that resulting work would be copyrightable.
It's not sufficient that there's a lot of work in making the copy. It's not sufficient that it takes a lot of expertise to make the copy. If the purpose of the picture was to reproduce a work in the public domain as best as possible for archiving purposes, the resulting picture should be in the public domain. It's only something separate if you intend to convey something different than the original painter intended or in a different way (not merely a diffrent medium. It's the same song if it's in the cd or in mp3 format).
Yes it could avoid my taking a wrong turn from time to time. But unless I was a gadget freak, would it really be worth my while carrying yet another piece of junk around in my car to save maybe 10 minutes a year finding my way back onto the right road?
I am a gadget freak, and I used to be all about the GPS. Then I was out with friends on a trip to West Virginia and the next thing I know the damn thing is telling us to "turn right on Jeep Trail." After confirming that the road was indeed not fit for the Lexus we were in, and not just misnamed, we said, "screw the GPS." Luckily my friends' navigation skills were not atrophied as mine is, and we found our way back quickly enough.
Now I really don't trust the thing. It has nothing to do with it being a "woman's voice" or me finding a machine "stubborn" or "bossy." It has to do with me not wanting to end up on jeep trails.
"We have this big hammer. Really big hammer, actually. Just acknowledge that it's our hammer, and that's it's a really big hammer, and that we are allowed to hit you with it at any time, and we promise not to hit you with it."
Makes me wanna rush right out and start developing Mono applications.
As a huge fan of the GPL, I gotta say that's no different than the GPL. "We have the copyright to the software, and we allow you to copy, modify, and distribute the code, but if you ever violate our conditions, we still own the copyright and reserve the right to sue you for breaching." That's perfectly reasonable. So is microsoft's statement. They're basically saying, "you can reimplement this stuff without worrying about our patents, as long as you don't challenge our patents or don't sue us for violating yours. If you do, the claws are coming out." That's pretty defensive.
Honestly, a "promise not to sue" is legally binding. If they sued you without you violating the terms you literally could show that to the court and they would tell MS to fuck themselves. They have given you an expectation that you won't be sued, so the doctrine of Estoppel applies.
At the same time people started paying the same amount of cash for gasoline luxury cars. If you want to argue that ALL $50,000 cars are illogical because you can buy cheaper ones that will take you from A to B, than I'll accept your argument against the Tesla. Otherwise, the Tesla is a very good car when competing of other cars in the same price range because it has the same "kickass" features and more.
When did a hand wave ignoring the range entirely become logical?
I fully explained in detail the reasons why range doesn't matter. It's not my fault that you either can't read or you can't argue against the points I've made.
When did a hand wave ignoring the lack of recharging stations become logical?
Again, it wasn't a "hand wave." I was explained why they're not needed and why it's perfectly convenient to charge a car overnight while it's sitting in the garage doing nothing anyway. Do you have a reason why that's inconvenient?
None of your arguments are logical. They remind me of the arguments I made to justify staying with a girlfriend once. "I love her, so I'll work around the problems!" -- not very logical. I ended up leaving her.
So let me understand your arguments. "I won't buy a car regardless of how good it is for 11 months out of the 12 because I can't drive it on a long trip for the remaining 30 days of the year. I want a car that I can refuel in 10 minutes at a gas station instead of not having to go to a gas station at all, because when my car is sitting on a garage all night, I don't want a plug connected to it. I'm going to ignore all of the arguments made against my point of view and claim the guy making them is illogical. I won't offer any counter-argument to his points, but if I say "illogical" enough times, it'll sound true.
As for your girlfriend, given that there are no perfect people out there, if you're not willing to work around problems, you're going to be very, very alone. So, without knowing more than what you've told me, it could be even more illogical for you to have left her depending on exactly what the "problems" were. Then again, I don't want to know and I don't care about your personal life, just pointing out that, again, you don't supply arguments, you just say, "I believe this is logical and that is illogical" and think it's an argument.
That was literally my first thought when I saw this, but I checked out other videos by that YouTube user and it looks totally legit. If this is a joke, they went a long way.
They went a long way. If you go to their user page, you can see that the user joined youtube on April 1st this year. I guess they liked the joke too much to let it go after april fools.
This car is twice the price of most fully-loaded sedans, and the price difference is equal to the total lifetime fuel cost for a conventional vehicle.
The car is a luxury sedan, with a lot of power and tons of extras like large LCD screens and handles that retract. It's price is on par with other luxury sedans, cheaper than many of them. As I've stated, the reason I'm not buying it is because I'm not in the market for a $50,000 car, any $50,000 car, but it's not like this is the only $50,000 car out there. If you're going to buy one of those, the Tesla is looking good.
Even ignoring that, the range is substantially less than a conventional vehicle.
Which, as I've stated, is completely irrelevant.
Even ignoring that, there are no dedicated charging stations anywhere so it'll take a substantial amount of time(hours) to charge assuming you find an outlet you can use, which is unlikely at the moment.
Which is also completely irrelevant, unless you plan on not sleeping. Get home in the evening, plug car in, it'll be fully charged in the morning when you leave again. It's actually more convenient than a gas car in that sense. You never need to stop by a gas station and it's going to parked in your garage every night anyway.
Even ignoring that, a dedicated charging station takes ten times the time a petroleum car takes to fuel.
and it's still more convenient to charge for 10 hours at home while you sleep than 10 minutes at a gas station. Seriously, it's not like you have to be there holding a pump for 10 hours.
What does this car have going for it?
It's a nice-looking luxury car with tons of luxury features, lots of space to fit things in (the front hood is also a luggage compartment, the engine is below the car), that has tons of power, is almost completely silent, requires no oil changes...
Well, logically the reduced emissions by replacing your car won't affect the global climate appreciably
...it's way more efficient than gas cars (apparently over 90% efficiency), so I doubt that. I'm not part of the "green" fad, if it's a choice between the environment and my convenience, I'll take my convenience every time but this is an awesome car and the only drawbacks you can name really aren't drawbacks at all for me. Again, I'm not going to buy it at that price, but it's the car that I would buy if I could afford cars of that price.
This car, and this company, aren't logical. The only reasons to buy this horribly expensive car are wholly emotional.
If your price range for your car is half that of the model S, then no, this isn't the logical car for you. The company is logical as hell, though. They're offering a kickass vehicle for people who have the money to spend on a kickass vehicle. Economies of scale kick in, and the cheaper cars come later. Their first model was a much worse car (it had only enough space in the trunk for a golf club, everything else was being taken up by batteries and engines, wtf) at twice the price. They're selling pretty much all the cars they can afford to produce, and even though the profit margin is low, it apparently is there. Seems to me like the company is perfectly logical.
Look, like I said to the other guy, it's your money, and you choose how best to spend it when you buy a car. All I said is that it's not logical to favor another car because it has more range, when the range of this car should be suitable for most people the vast majority of the time, and it's incredibly easy to find alternative transportation for the rare occasions you need to travel a lot. I never said it's priced for the average joe, and I never even said it was good for the environment until you brought it up claiming that it wasn't all that much better (but offering no evidence to back that up. The efficiency of electric vs combustion motors alone should make it a lot better).
That's not how people weigh choices. They will wonder "Will I ever need to travel more than 200 miles? Yes? Ok, that rules out the Tesla."
That would basically be my thought process. Unless there is some huge benefit to driving a Tesla, it would simply not even be worth considering; if I bought one, I would then have to turn around and buy a second 'real' car.
It's your money, and you can use whatever thought process you want as to how to spend it, but that doesn't make it logical. If you only need to make a few over 200 mile trips a year, the money you'll save on gas will pay for the car rental. So the only thing that makes sense to ask is, "is this a better car for the majority of my driving needs and is there an alternative I can easily take for those exceptions where this car just isn't suitable?"
For me, the answer is yes on both counts. The only thing preventing me from buying the car is that I'm not in the market for a new car, much less a $50,000 one. The range isn't an issue at all.
The thing is, unless they're rich, people don't buy a car based on their day-to-day routine...If a car that suits their day-to-day driving needs can't handle an annual 12 hour drive to grandma's...
Really? You choose the car you drive based on it being to handle your annual 12 hour trip instead of how well it handles your drive around the city every single day?
Rentals aren't that expensive. At $4 per charge, instead of the $30 to fill up the tank you can save enough over a year to rent a car for that trip to Grandma's. Not to mention that I'm not anywhere near rich, but I start looking at airplane tickets once travel time gets to be that long.
Another interesting point: My current vehicle can travel almost double that distance on a tank of gasoline, and takes seconds to refill. This is important because it's almost 500 miles to the next city from where I live -- I can travel to the next city with one tank of gas, but I'd need to refill the battery 3 times to comfortably make it by electric car, since I'm not going to let my batteries run to 0%.
Will the 8 hour drive to the next town become a multiple day journey? Will I need to start planning to visit hotels where now I can just ignore the towns? Will we see a re-emergence of small refueling towns, as we saw in the age of coal-based rail, thanks to the significantly reduced range of our vehicles?
Or, much more logically, will we see people using their electric cars for the daily everyday travel and simply use other options for long-range travel? I don't get the emphasis people are placing on these over 200 miles trips. How often do you drive that much? If the answer is 2 or 3 times a year, then the electric car should suit you just fine the vast majority of the time. If the answer is, "very often" then the electric car isn't for you, but it still is perfect for 99.5% of the driving population. It's not like gas cars are going to disappear overnight because kickass electric cars are finally here.
if you would like to actually write down some words that involve logical reasoning, rather than baseless hysteria, then at that point i would be interested in responding to you
Then let me give it a try.
over an extended period of time, i send to your email address explicit detailed accounts of how i am going to brutally murder you. i do this for months on end. i show you i know where you live on a map, i send you pictures of you getting in and out of your car, i send you pictures of your family
That problem with that type of harassment is the threat of physical violence. I'm not afraid of the e-mails, I'm afraid of the fact that you actually do know where I live, you know who my family is, and you appear to be nuts enough to actually carry out your threat. If you keep posting to me on slashdot that you're going to kill me without giving any indication that you actually have the means to do so, I won't feel threatened, and yes, it should be protected speech because it's not a credible threat.
The girl in question wasn't receiving threats to her life. She was receiving insults. The world isn't a nice place. What Lori Drew said to her online pretending to be her "online boyfriend" are things that can actually be said from a real boyfriend during a bad breakup. Would the guy be a world class jerk? Sure. Is the guy guilty of a crime if his insinuations that his ex is worthless and should kill herself actually causes her to kill herself? No. I went through my share of bullying when I was a kid in school. Megan apparently did her share of bullying when she was in school. Would you have wanted her to be guilty of murder had Lori Drew's kid committed suicide instead?
In the end, committing suicide is a choice. McDonalds advertisement isn't at fault if it convinces you to overeat and become obese. Budweiser isn't at a fault if their ads cause you to become an alcoholic. Nobody is responsible for your death unless they actually physically caused it. Talking you into it is advice, but you can always say no. Yes, this girl was psychologically disturbed, but that's all the more reason why Lori Drew wasn't at fault. Megan's psychological problems were at fault.
Yes, I understand that the idea of an adult bullying a teenager is insane. Reprehensible doesn't cover it. Drew is an immature bitch, but that's not illegal, nor should it be.
On Linux, you can remove the DLL without destabilizing running applications.
Not if your running applications are using them, you can't. Everytime I update firefox with apt, firefox needs to be restarted because it starts doing weird crap (not opening new tabs, giving weird error messages). Same thing happens if I update gnome libraries.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also unimpressed by "Windows Can but Won't." I update firefox and it starts behaving erratically, I restart firefox, I update gnome and it behaves badly, I restart everything in X. It's quick, it's painless and way quicker than rebooting the whole computer. It's pretty much the solution to the trade-off they're talking about. Don't give a shit, let the applications crash. Give a warning that it could happen, or set all the applications and dependencies to restart automatically after an update without rebooting the box. It works pretty well. "Can but Won't" also doesn't explain why Windows won't let you copy files that are in use, when copying is (or should be) a read-only operation.
It is a sad day when bad fanfiction and AMVs are considered "art and culture."
It's a sad day when in this day and age, people are still trying to be elitist enough to decide what is and isn't art.
It's true the majority of fanfiction out there isn't as polished as something an accomplished author would write. I guarantee you that whoever your favorite author happens to be, he has written some serious crap that nobody has ever seen, that he has never tried to publish. See, it turns out that writing takes practice. If you can get past the lack of polish, some of those stories can be quite good. Later, some of those people might become great writers, and then their old fanfiction is going to be analyzed by literature students.
Everything is art and culture. There's no qualifying requirements. There certainly is art and culture which you and I might not enjoy, but you and I aren't important enough to tell others what to enjoy, much less tell artists to stop creating their work.
Sad thing is, that'd probably be an effective ad. And if you don't think so, look at Budweiser's latest campaign.
I was actually having a discussion with a friend of mine about beers (and over a beer) about that, and he figured out exactly what "drinkability" was. I was telling him how a good strategy is to drink the good beers first, then move on to the cheap and "light" beers later (if you're interested in calorie content) because after you get buzzed, you can't appreciate a good tasting beer as much anyway. He pointed out that he's cool with Bud Light to start with if the goal is to get drunk. Not because it tastes good, but because it doesn't taste so bad like some other beers that actually make you want to puke. It's drinkable. And that's what drinkability is: unlike shit like PBR and budweiser select, you can actually drink bud light and keep it down. You won't enjoy it, but it's drinkable.
If your standards are a bit higher than "drinkability" implies, I was recently introduced to Don de Dieu. Highly recommend it, it was fantastic.
Frankly, I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention and that there is no higher power to answer to.
The problem with a higher being responsible for morality is that now you have to wonder why he's right. Is it specifically because he's a higher being? If so, is that because he simply knows better than the rest of us as a parent knows better than his child? How can you be sure that, even though He knows better, his goals don't involve screwing you? You're not even taking His word for it, you're taking the word of quite a bunch of people that came before you and weren't quite entirely consistent about what His wishes were.
On the other hand, it could be a case of following his plans for you regardless of whether or not they are beneficial to you. But then, why are you doing that? Might makes right? Do what I say or you'll burn for eternity? That isn't consistent with our moral values (or the ones in the Bible...meek will inherit the Earth and whatnot)
Which really brings us to the crux of the issue. The Christian morality of today isn't the Christian morality of yesterday, and as we as a society continue to reinterpret the Bible (or outright find excuses to ignore certain sections), even the people who claim they "answer to a higher power" when it comes to their morality really have no way of knowing if that's true. They assume it is because that's what their church currently teaches, but how do you know? For that matter, how do you know you chose the right religion? Even if you take just Christians there are enough differences between the denominations that they like to attack one another. I've heard people claim Catholics weren't Christians. I've heard people claim Mormons weren't Christians. The protestant denominations are plenty and have some very quantifiable differences (for example, are you predetermined to go to heaven, or do you have a choice in the matter?)
In the end it all comes down to faith. You have it, I don't. I have no right to tell you that you're wrong, I have no proof that you are indeed wrong. You have no right to tell me that I'm wrong, you have no proof to offer me. Government needs to stay the hell out, take the stance that doesn't rely on religion to make their decisions (after all, you'd have to choose one first, which is akin to a State religion, which is forbidden in the constitution).
Your own personal, additional morals are up to you (or in case you believe in that, up to your personal deity. You were still the one to decided to have faith, so it was up to you).
I suppose they think we're more "evolved" now.
If you take the view that God knows best and we are like children to him, that's actually more true than you'd care to admit. There's only so much children can be taught. Eventually they all reach a rebelling stage and have to make their own mistakes and learn from that. It's part of how they grow into adults and, depending on what you believe God wants for us, it could be quite pleasing to him to see us try to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong. We're growing up and becoming something more. On the other hand, if you believe his plans for us involves complete dependence on him for eternity, that's not much like a parent-child relationship. You want your children to move out of the house sometime right?
drove down the highway today and was stuck in traffic for a long while. There were lots of cars zipping in and out, but the main problem was a group of long-haul trucks taking up a mile of roadway...
The internet is not like a truck!
Although I must admit it's hilarious that I and others who have replied are taking issue with the accuracy of the analogy from BadAnalogyGuy.
I didn't say I was functional! It started out as a coding binge for a class project. Based on my notes, I later concluded that some time around day 6 I began reading wikipedia articles on topology, to formally describe the performance of my networking protocol in a network built in a 4-dimensional toroidal universe.
Sounds about right, but you're way more tolerant to lack of sleep than I am. I was working on my senior design project, and on hour 76 I started pulling the cat-5 cables out of my router because I thought, for about 20 seconds, that my project was to make the lights in the router blink in a certain order.
Once those 20 seconds wore off, and I had my "wtf moment" over that hallucination, I realized it really wasn't saving me any time to stay up any longer, and that I needed to sleep.
Dude, I once went 76 hours without sleep, and by the end of it I started blacking out and hallucinating. How in the hell were you anywhere near functional for 9 days?
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that PS2s are still selling (strangely) well and getting new game releases, it's unlikely Sony will restore BC (even if only software emulation) to the PS3 platform.
I've heard that argument before, but I don't get it. If everyone who were going to buy a PS2 decided to get a PS3 instead, I figure Sony would be ecstatic. I would think that they would much rather sell PS3's than PS2's, so they can compete with the current generation of consoles. After all isn't that the point of introducing backwards compatibility? They made the PS2 able to play PS1 games so that people who were interested or already had a large PS1 game library would buy PS2s. They made the PS3 (initially) compatible with the PS2 for the same reason so that people would buy PS3's.
The only reason to not have BC is the exactly the opposite. If the PS2 was not selling well, and no new games were coming out, and there was no interest in it at all, then they shouldn't include it because it would increase the cost to produce the PS3 for no reason.
News flash - these "sporting events" miss the entire point of sports - which is to get your obese butt off the couch and have some fun doing something more physical than popping the top off a King Can. Sports shouldn't be a "spectator sport". Just like boxing shouldn't be a sport, period - not when the goal is to beat the other person senseless. Then again, most people can't even be arsed to spend more than 15 minutes a day doing anything more strenuous than walking to the fridge.
I would say that's a bit close-minded. Sure, the points of you participating in sports is to do something fun that is physical. The point of spectator sports is that some humans, not all, can achieve a level of performance that the majority of us can't (regardless of how much we were to train). It can be very enjoyable to watch a competition between the absolute best of our race in a particular event.
As for boxing, the goal isn't simply to beat the other person senseless. It's to avoid letting the other person beat you senseless. If you participate, you accept to take on the same risks as your opponent. You know what those risks are and you're willing to take them on. I believe consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want, and it doesn't cease to be a sport just because it seems tasteless to you. That's fine, and it's great that you value human life to that extent, but all that it means is that it's not a sport you're interested in participating or spectating. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a problem with the sport itself, it's just your personal preference due to your personal beliefs.
There was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. Then we learned about galactic rotation, and added dark matter. Then we learned about expansion, and tossed in inflation and dark energy. Then we learned about the missing gravity waves. What will we add next?
Hmm...whatever's necessary to explain the observations?
Let's try the more accurateThere was that beautiful standard model of a big bang. It fit a great many observations, but we discovered it didn't explain everything. Then we added some things to it and now it explained more of our observations, but it still didn't explain everything. Then we added more things and it explained yet more observations...
That's the way it's supposed to work. As long as the modifications to the theory contain falsifiable predictions, it's all good. They can always be removed or modified again if a new observation doesn't fit the predictions. The model always gets better and better.
The computer was, I think, obviously clean and well taken care of; but the missing screw was probably enough to void the warranty
No, no it wasn't. They would like you to think that merely opening the computer voids the warranty, but they're not legally allowed to do so (in the US and probably most other places) and you can open it and replace parts at your leisure. They can only deny your warranty if they can track the problem to something you did (like the guy above who mentioned somebody cracking the case while trying to open the laptop). Whatever new parts you add are also, of course, not covered by the warranty, so if they failed, they won't replace it (again, of course).
I sent my laptop in with a different hard drive (didn't want to send them my data), told the Apple "genius" this and he tried to tell me that my applecare warranty was voided and they would charge me if he sent it in for repairs. I told him that I knew my rights and to send it anyway. So he makes a note in the repair order saying that he "tried to tell customer warranty was void." Of course, despite all this, the laptop was mailed back to me, repaired, at no charge. Not because they were being nice, but because it does not void the warranty.
I'm pretty sure the employee believed what he was saying, and I think it's possible he had been purposefully misinformed in order to turn away customers who would be scared to pay for repairs and wouldn't send it in.
When I was going through my major coursework for my BS in Computer Science through Georgia Southern University, they were still using Pascal to teach programming, even though C was one of the major programming languages at the time (this was around 1998).
Frankly, I wish they were still doing that. Pascal is an awesome teaching language and it's very structured so it helps in teaching good practice. Once you learn how to program ONE language you've learned them all. Syntax doesn't really matter, worst case scenario you keep a reference book at your side so you can look it up.
In Computer Science, the focus is necessarily on /algorithms/ and /algorithm development/, irrespective of technology. But, especially with technology oriented subjects, they also need to stay current with the times! It's great that Computer Science graduates know what a bubble sort is. What employers want to know is CAN YOU IMPLEMENT IT FOR ME IN A MODERN WAY?
First of all, if you can implement bubble sort in pascal, you can do it C#. It's the same thing, syntax really doesn't matter. Second, no employer cares if you can implement a bubble sort in the modern language. In fact, they'd rather you didn't, and instead used the efficient sort libraries that comes with every modern language, if the work is that simple. If, on the other hand, the work is complex and you're going to be sorting the amount of data that google is sorting, neither the bubble nor the default library sort is going to help you. There they want to know if you understand what the problems are, which sorting algorithms can fit you better given storage and speed trade-offs, which algorithms allow you to split the work and parallelize across thousands of stations while keeping network traffic as low as possible, etc. In other words, they need to know you understand the theory.
Universities need more vocational training in their curriculum. If they'd ditch all the useless liberal arts crap it wouldn't even take longer.
Actually, they need to reverse the trend of turning universities into vocational schools and increase the requirements to go outside your field. When you're a freshman and sophomore you feel like those classes are just getting in your way, but you really come to appreciate them by the time you become an upperclassman. It will give you a break from all the stuff that's driving you mad, and if you're lucky, you may even learn something in another discipline that will actually apply to yours. A person in computer science that's taking some psychology classes could probably use what they learned in psych to design better UI's or even ways to help minimize security issues by better understanding how social engineering works.
Oh please, this has nothing to do with lobbyists having more power that the people. The voters clearly do not care about this issue. During this last presidential election process, did anyone at any campaign event or town hall ever ask about eliminating or reducing the penalties for copyright infringement? No. People just do [not] see this as a problem.
During campaigns, people only care about the issues they've been told to care about by corporations (in the way of big media) and lobbyists (in the way of campaign commercials). That's why lobbyists are so powerful. Look it up: whoever spends the most money on their campaign generally wins, save a few exceptions which are probably statistically insignificant (I say probably because I haven't actually done a statistical analysis to be sure...either way, it's the vast minority who manage to win without spending as much).
The questions people ask at town halls are the questions that Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN pundits discuss every single night while trying to get people riled up in favor of against the pet issues of the management. They're about the accusations and misrepresentations they hear on negative advertisement every day. People are, in general, easily manipulated. I'm not excluding you and I from this, it's not a problem of the "less intelligent sheeple" or whatever. It's a condition of human psychology and it applies to all of us. Ever see the ad for a pizza and suddenly become hungry when you weren't before? Why do you think coca cola keeps advertising coke? Because they think there are people who haven't heard of it left? Hell, you can see it happen on slashdot, and if the issues on slashdot were what the majority of the population were being exposed to, you can bet your ass those are the questions that would be asked in town hall meetings.
You're suffering from the slashdot delusion - the belief that stuff you know nothing about is trivially easy.
He's not saying it's easy, he's saying there was no artistry involved. If I decided tomorrow that I would copy by hand the entire work of Shakespeare with pen and paper, it would be a pain in the ass, it would take me a long time, and it would be hard. It still shouldn't be allowed to be copyrighted because the artistic value of the resulting work is still solely the words of Shakespeare. My handwriting, no matter how good it is, isn't adding anything to it. The fact that it was painstakingly time-consuming doesn't mean anything was added to the work.
If, on the other hand, I copied the work of Shakespeare out of order in such a way as to make the juxtaposed dialog between plays humorous in a way Shakespeare did not intend them to be, that's a new copyrightable work. If I copied everything straight through in such a way that the text formed a picture, as in a montage of sorts, that resulting work would be copyrightable.
It's not sufficient that there's a lot of work in making the copy. It's not sufficient that it takes a lot of expertise to make the copy. If the purpose of the picture was to reproduce a work in the public domain as best as possible for archiving purposes, the resulting picture should be in the public domain. It's only something separate if you intend to convey something different than the original painter intended or in a different way (not merely a diffrent medium. It's the same song if it's in the cd or in mp3 format).
Go to settings, check 'avoid dirt roads' and you'll be fine. Time to atrophy those skills again!
We did try the settings, and we had "avoid highways" "avoid toll roads" but no "avoid dirt roads." Probably a crappy GPS, but still.
Yes it could avoid my taking a wrong turn from time to time. But unless I was a gadget freak, would it really be worth my while carrying yet another piece of junk around in my car to save maybe 10 minutes a year finding my way back onto the right road?
I am a gadget freak, and I used to be all about the GPS. Then I was out with friends on a trip to West Virginia and the next thing I know the damn thing is telling us to "turn right on Jeep Trail." After confirming that the road was indeed not fit for the Lexus we were in, and not just misnamed, we said, "screw the GPS." Luckily my friends' navigation skills were not atrophied as mine is, and we found our way back quickly enough.
Now I really don't trust the thing. It has nothing to do with it being a "woman's voice" or me finding a machine "stubborn" or "bossy." It has to do with me not wanting to end up on jeep trails.
Yeah, the implied threat is quite menacing.
"We have this big hammer. Really big hammer, actually. Just acknowledge that it's our hammer, and that's it's a really big hammer, and that we are allowed to hit you with it at any time, and we promise not to hit you with it."
Makes me wanna rush right out and start developing Mono applications.
As a huge fan of the GPL, I gotta say that's no different than the GPL. "We have the copyright to the software, and we allow you to copy, modify, and distribute the code, but if you ever violate our conditions, we still own the copyright and reserve the right to sue you for breaching." That's perfectly reasonable. So is microsoft's statement. They're basically saying, "you can reimplement this stuff without worrying about our patents, as long as you don't challenge our patents or don't sue us for violating yours. If you do, the claws are coming out." That's pretty defensive.
Honestly, a "promise not to sue" is legally binding. If they sued you without you violating the terms you literally could show that to the court and they would tell MS to fuck themselves. They have given you an expectation that you won't be sued, so the doctrine of Estoppel applies.
So, when did "kickass" become a logical argument?
At the same time people started paying the same amount of cash for gasoline luxury cars. If you want to argue that ALL $50,000 cars are illogical because you can buy cheaper ones that will take you from A to B, than I'll accept your argument against the Tesla. Otherwise, the Tesla is a very good car when competing of other cars in the same price range because it has the same "kickass" features and more.
When did a hand wave ignoring the range entirely become logical?
I fully explained in detail the reasons why range doesn't matter. It's not my fault that you either can't read or you can't argue against the points I've made.
When did a hand wave ignoring the lack of recharging stations become logical?
Again, it wasn't a "hand wave." I was explained why they're not needed and why it's perfectly convenient to charge a car overnight while it's sitting in the garage doing nothing anyway. Do you have a reason why that's inconvenient?
None of your arguments are logical. They remind me of the arguments I made to justify staying with a girlfriend once. "I love her, so I'll work around the problems!" -- not very logical. I ended up leaving her.
So let me understand your arguments. "I won't buy a car regardless of how good it is for 11 months out of the 12 because I can't drive it on a long trip for the remaining 30 days of the year. I want a car that I can refuel in 10 minutes at a gas station instead of not having to go to a gas station at all, because when my car is sitting on a garage all night, I don't want a plug connected to it. I'm going to ignore all of the arguments made against my point of view and claim the guy making them is illogical. I won't offer any counter-argument to his points, but if I say "illogical" enough times, it'll sound true.
As for your girlfriend, given that there are no perfect people out there, if you're not willing to work around problems, you're going to be very, very alone. So, without knowing more than what you've told me, it could be even more illogical for you to have left her depending on exactly what the "problems" were. Then again, I don't want to know and I don't care about your personal life, just pointing out that, again, you don't supply arguments, you just say, "I believe this is logical and that is illogical" and think it's an argument.
That was literally my first thought when I saw this, but I checked out other videos by that YouTube user and it looks totally legit. If this is a joke, they went a long way.
They went a long way. If you go to their user page, you can see that the user joined youtube on April 1st this year. I guess they liked the joke too much to let it go after april fools.
This car is twice the price of most fully-loaded sedans, and the price difference is equal to the total lifetime fuel cost for a conventional vehicle.
The car is a luxury sedan, with a lot of power and tons of extras like large LCD screens and handles that retract. It's price is on par with other luxury sedans, cheaper than many of them. As I've stated, the reason I'm not buying it is because I'm not in the market for a $50,000 car, any $50,000 car, but it's not like this is the only $50,000 car out there. If you're going to buy one of those, the Tesla is looking good.
Even ignoring that, the range is substantially less than a conventional vehicle.
Which, as I've stated, is completely irrelevant.
Even ignoring that, there are no dedicated charging stations anywhere so it'll take a substantial amount of time(hours) to charge assuming you find an outlet you can use, which is unlikely at the moment.
Which is also completely irrelevant, unless you plan on not sleeping. Get home in the evening, plug car in, it'll be fully charged in the morning when you leave again. It's actually more convenient than a gas car in that sense. You never need to stop by a gas station and it's going to parked in your garage every night anyway.
Even ignoring that, a dedicated charging station takes ten times the time a petroleum car takes to fuel.
and it's still more convenient to charge for 10 hours at home while you sleep than 10 minutes at a gas station. Seriously, it's not like you have to be there holding a pump for 10 hours.
What does this car have going for it?
It's a nice-looking luxury car with tons of luxury features, lots of space to fit things in (the front hood is also a luggage compartment, the engine is below the car), that has tons of power, is almost completely silent, requires no oil changes...
Well, logically the reduced emissions by replacing your car won't affect the global climate appreciably
...it's way more efficient than gas cars (apparently over 90% efficiency), so I doubt that. I'm not part of the "green" fad, if it's a choice between the environment and my convenience, I'll take my convenience every time but this is an awesome car and the only drawbacks you can name really aren't drawbacks at all for me. Again, I'm not going to buy it at that price, but it's the car that I would buy if I could afford cars of that price.
This car, and this company, aren't logical. The only reasons to buy this horribly expensive car are wholly emotional.
If your price range for your car is half that of the model S, then no, this isn't the logical car for you. The company is logical as hell, though. They're offering a kickass vehicle for people who have the money to spend on a kickass vehicle. Economies of scale kick in, and the cheaper cars come later. Their first model was a much worse car (it had only enough space in the trunk for a golf club, everything else was being taken up by batteries and engines, wtf) at twice the price. They're selling pretty much all the cars they can afford to produce, and even though the profit margin is low, it apparently is there. Seems to me like the company is perfectly logical.
Look, like I said to the other guy, it's your money, and you choose how best to spend it when you buy a car. All I said is that it's not logical to favor another car because it has more range, when the range of this car should be suitable for most people the vast majority of the time, and it's incredibly easy to find alternative transportation for the rare occasions you need to travel a lot. I never said it's priced for the average joe, and I never even said it was good for the environment until you brought it up claiming that it wasn't all that much better (but offering no evidence to back that up. The efficiency of electric vs combustion motors alone should make it a lot better).
That's not how people weigh choices. They will wonder "Will I ever need to travel more than 200 miles? Yes? Ok, that rules out the Tesla." That would basically be my thought process. Unless there is some huge benefit to driving a Tesla, it would simply not even be worth considering; if I bought one, I would then have to turn around and buy a second 'real' car.
It's your money, and you can use whatever thought process you want as to how to spend it, but that doesn't make it logical. If you only need to make a few over 200 mile trips a year, the money you'll save on gas will pay for the car rental. So the only thing that makes sense to ask is, "is this a better car for the majority of my driving needs and is there an alternative I can easily take for those exceptions where this car just isn't suitable?"
For me, the answer is yes on both counts. The only thing preventing me from buying the car is that I'm not in the market for a new car, much less a $50,000 one. The range isn't an issue at all.
The thing is, unless they're rich, people don't buy a car based on their day-to-day routine...If a car that suits their day-to-day driving needs can't handle an annual 12 hour drive to grandma's...
Really? You choose the car you drive based on it being to handle your annual 12 hour trip instead of how well it handles your drive around the city every single day?
Rentals aren't that expensive. At $4 per charge, instead of the $30 to fill up the tank you can save enough over a year to rent a car for that trip to Grandma's. Not to mention that I'm not anywhere near rich, but I start looking at airplane tickets once travel time gets to be that long.
Another interesting point: My current vehicle can travel almost double that distance on a tank of gasoline, and takes seconds to refill. This is important because it's almost 500 miles to the next city from where I live -- I can travel to the next city with one tank of gas, but I'd need to refill the battery 3 times to comfortably make it by electric car, since I'm not going to let my batteries run to 0%.
Will the 8 hour drive to the next town become a multiple day journey? Will I need to start planning to visit hotels where now I can just ignore the towns? Will we see a re-emergence of small refueling towns, as we saw in the age of coal-based rail, thanks to the significantly reduced range of our vehicles?
Or, much more logically, will we see people using their electric cars for the daily everyday travel and simply use other options for long-range travel? I don't get the emphasis people are placing on these over 200 miles trips. How often do you drive that much? If the answer is 2 or 3 times a year, then the electric car should suit you just fine the vast majority of the time. If the answer is, "very often" then the electric car isn't for you, but it still is perfect for 99.5% of the driving population. It's not like gas cars are going to disappear overnight because kickass electric cars are finally here.
if you would like to actually write down some words that involve logical reasoning, rather than baseless hysteria, then at that point i would be interested in responding to you
Then let me give it a try.
over an extended period of time, i send to your email address explicit detailed accounts of how i am going to brutally murder you. i do this for months on end. i show you i know where you live on a map, i send you pictures of you getting in and out of your car, i send you pictures of your family
That problem with that type of harassment is the threat of physical violence. I'm not afraid of the e-mails, I'm afraid of the fact that you actually do know where I live, you know who my family is, and you appear to be nuts enough to actually carry out your threat. If you keep posting to me on slashdot that you're going to kill me without giving any indication that you actually have the means to do so, I won't feel threatened, and yes, it should be protected speech because it's not a credible threat.
The girl in question wasn't receiving threats to her life. She was receiving insults. The world isn't a nice place. What Lori Drew said to her online pretending to be her "online boyfriend" are things that can actually be said from a real boyfriend during a bad breakup. Would the guy be a world class jerk? Sure. Is the guy guilty of a crime if his insinuations that his ex is worthless and should kill herself actually causes her to kill herself? No. I went through my share of bullying when I was a kid in school. Megan apparently did her share of bullying when she was in school. Would you have wanted her to be guilty of murder had Lori Drew's kid committed suicide instead?
In the end, committing suicide is a choice. McDonalds advertisement isn't at fault if it convinces you to overeat and become obese. Budweiser isn't at a fault if their ads cause you to become an alcoholic. Nobody is responsible for your death unless they actually physically caused it. Talking you into it is advice, but you can always say no. Yes, this girl was psychologically disturbed, but that's all the more reason why Lori Drew wasn't at fault. Megan's psychological problems were at fault.
Yes, I understand that the idea of an adult bullying a teenager is insane. Reprehensible doesn't cover it. Drew is an immature bitch, but that's not illegal, nor should it be.
On Linux, you can remove the DLL without destabilizing running applications.
Not if your running applications are using them, you can't. Everytime I update firefox with apt, firefox needs to be restarted because it starts doing weird crap (not opening new tabs, giving weird error messages). Same thing happens if I update gnome libraries.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also unimpressed by "Windows Can but Won't." I update firefox and it starts behaving erratically, I restart firefox, I update gnome and it behaves badly, I restart everything in X. It's quick, it's painless and way quicker than rebooting the whole computer. It's pretty much the solution to the trade-off they're talking about. Don't give a shit, let the applications crash. Give a warning that it could happen, or set all the applications and dependencies to restart automatically after an update without rebooting the box. It works pretty well. "Can but Won't" also doesn't explain why Windows won't let you copy files that are in use, when copying is (or should be) a read-only operation.
It is a sad day when bad fanfiction and AMVs are considered "art and culture."
It's a sad day when in this day and age, people are still trying to be elitist enough to decide what is and isn't art.
It's true the majority of fanfiction out there isn't as polished as something an accomplished author would write. I guarantee you that whoever your favorite author happens to be, he has written some serious crap that nobody has ever seen, that he has never tried to publish. See, it turns out that writing takes practice. If you can get past the lack of polish, some of those stories can be quite good. Later, some of those people might become great writers, and then their old fanfiction is going to be analyzed by literature students.
Everything is art and culture. There's no qualifying requirements. There certainly is art and culture which you and I might not enjoy, but you and I aren't important enough to tell others what to enjoy, much less tell artists to stop creating their work.
You don't know what searchability is?...
Sad thing is, that'd probably be an effective ad. And if you don't think so, look at Budweiser's latest campaign.
I was actually having a discussion with a friend of mine about beers (and over a beer) about that, and he figured out exactly what "drinkability" was. I was telling him how a good strategy is to drink the good beers first, then move on to the cheap and "light" beers later (if you're interested in calorie content) because after you get buzzed, you can't appreciate a good tasting beer as much anyway. He pointed out that he's cool with Bud Light to start with if the goal is to get drunk. Not because it tastes good, but because it doesn't taste so bad like some other beers that actually make you want to puke. It's drinkable. And that's what drinkability is: unlike shit like PBR and budweiser select, you can actually drink bud light and keep it down. You won't enjoy it, but it's drinkable.
If your standards are a bit higher than "drinkability" implies, I was recently introduced to Don de Dieu. Highly recommend it, it was fantastic.
Thirdly, even if that were true, there's plenty of other countries were legalized prostitution works extremely well, Germany, Switzerland etc.
Don't forget the United States. There's legalized and regulated prostitution in Nevada.
Frankly, I find it more frightening that most of our leaders and most of the population in general have all bought into the idea that morality is just convention and that there is no higher power to answer to.
The problem with a higher being responsible for morality is that now you have to wonder why he's right. Is it specifically because he's a higher being? If so, is that because he simply knows better than the rest of us as a parent knows better than his child? How can you be sure that, even though He knows better, his goals don't involve screwing you? You're not even taking His word for it, you're taking the word of quite a bunch of people that came before you and weren't quite entirely consistent about what His wishes were.
On the other hand, it could be a case of following his plans for you regardless of whether or not they are beneficial to you. But then, why are you doing that? Might makes right? Do what I say or you'll burn for eternity? That isn't consistent with our moral values (or the ones in the Bible...meek will inherit the Earth and whatnot)
Which really brings us to the crux of the issue. The Christian morality of today isn't the Christian morality of yesterday, and as we as a society continue to reinterpret the Bible (or outright find excuses to ignore certain sections), even the people who claim they "answer to a higher power" when it comes to their morality really have no way of knowing if that's true. They assume it is because that's what their church currently teaches, but how do you know? For that matter, how do you know you chose the right religion? Even if you take just Christians there are enough differences between the denominations that they like to attack one another. I've heard people claim Catholics weren't Christians. I've heard people claim Mormons weren't Christians. The protestant denominations are plenty and have some very quantifiable differences (for example, are you predetermined to go to heaven, or do you have a choice in the matter?)
In the end it all comes down to faith. You have it, I don't. I have no right to tell you that you're wrong, I have no proof that you are indeed wrong. You have no right to tell me that I'm wrong, you have no proof to offer me. Government needs to stay the hell out, take the stance that doesn't rely on religion to make their decisions (after all, you'd have to choose one first, which is akin to a State religion, which is forbidden in the constitution).
Your own personal, additional morals are up to you (or in case you believe in that, up to your personal deity. You were still the one to decided to have faith, so it was up to you).
I suppose they think we're more "evolved" now.
If you take the view that God knows best and we are like children to him, that's actually more true than you'd care to admit. There's only so much children can be taught. Eventually they all reach a rebelling stage and have to make their own mistakes and learn from that. It's part of how they grow into adults and, depending on what you believe God wants for us, it could be quite pleasing to him to see us try to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong. We're growing up and becoming something more. On the other hand, if you believe his plans for us involves complete dependence on him for eternity, that's not much like a parent-child relationship. You want your children to move out of the house sometime right?
drove down the highway today and was stuck in traffic for a long while. There were lots of cars zipping in and out, but the main problem was a group of long-haul trucks taking up a mile of roadway...
The internet is not like a truck!
Although I must admit it's hilarious that I and others who have replied are taking issue with the accuracy of the analogy from BadAnalogyGuy.
I didn't say I was functional! It started out as a coding binge for a class project. Based on my notes, I later concluded that some time around day 6 I began reading wikipedia articles on topology, to formally describe the performance of my networking protocol in a network built in a 4-dimensional toroidal universe.
Sounds about right, but you're way more tolerant to lack of sleep than I am. I was working on my senior design project, and on hour 76 I started pulling the cat-5 cables out of my router because I thought, for about 20 seconds, that my project was to make the lights in the router blink in a certain order.
Once those 20 seconds wore off, and I had my "wtf moment" over that hallucination, I realized it really wasn't saving me any time to stay up any longer, and that I needed to sleep.
I once went 9 days without sleep...
Dude, I once went 76 hours without sleep, and by the end of it I started blacking out and hallucinating. How in the hell were you anywhere near functional for 9 days?