knowing this why would you only set up one truecrypt partition? Your Interrogators expects two, how far will they go before accepting you only had the one?
Well, you could put everything they would be looking for in the 1st partition, bet that would work fine.
I think that's why the original poster added in "Be prepared to walk..." when he suggested that.
Really, I wouldn't offer $100 anyway if I wanted the domain back, as an offer of $100 shows that you are interested in it, and that you're willing to offer a non-trivial (by my standards atleast) amount of money to get it back. In which case they will likely come back with some high priced counter offer, and so forth. Seems like an effective way dick around with them and to waste their time, if you really didn't care about the domain much in the first place.
If I wanted it back, I would offer something at the just above the "not worth our time" amount for them, probably around $30 or so. If you stick to your guns and make it clear that you won't pay any more than that, they'll probably end up accepting it since they aren't going to get anything otherwise.
You're the idiot. I live in Minnesota, and on an icy road I'd much rather be in the Escort than some truck or SUV, because if I was to slide off the road I'm a lot less likely to roll the Escort over and be killed. The only real advantage trucks and SUVs have is better traction to help you get started with 4WD and a higher ground clearance to get through deep snow. On the other hand, the larger mass (more inertia), the higher center of gravity, and the poorer handling of the SUV are all liabilities in slippery conditions, which is why you will disproportionally see more SUVs upside-down in the ditch whenever an ice storm hits.
You might want to run the numbers. You can typically rent a minivan for something like $50-$75 per day with unlimited miles. Compare that to the cost of all the extra fuel you burn driving around that larger vehicle for the rest of the year when you don't need it.
If gasoline suddenly became prohibitively expensive, the existing fleet of low-MPG cars could not be upgraded quickly. I'd estimate 5 years to replace enough to significantly affect gasoline demand.
I guess it would depend on how you define prohibitively expensive. If the monthly gas bill starts exceeding the car payment on a new car by a significant amount, they'll be replaced in a hurry.
Why? The biggest flaw I see with it is that the typical minijack is held in place by soldered electrical connections to a circuit board, but that's not a fault of the plug itself, but cost cutting by manufacturers. Otherwise, you can insert it any direction, the plug doesn't slide out accidently but at the same time doesn't get stuck in the jack, and I don't have any problems with electrical contact either with the plug and socket itself.
Why would you want to connet your Firewire gear to a USB port?
Because you have a USB port and not a Firewire port?
USB doesn't have the features necessary to provide Firewire functionality.
We know that.
When an actual Firewire card costs less than $50, why would you use a silly adapter?
The same reason I have a USB-Ethernet adaptor. I don't have the luxury of installing whatever PCI cards I want in every computer I work on, as not all of them are my computers (or have available PCI slots for that matter).
Probably the main reason that such a device doesn't exist is that pretty much every Firewire device out there also speaks USB anyway, and the ones that don't would be in the 2nd category above and wouldn't work with the adaptor properly.
That's not his point. If all the Firewire drives at Best Buy are $30 more than their USB2-only cousins, people aren't going to be buying. The fact that us geeks put together our own external drives using off-the-shelf ATA/SATA drives and a $25 case off of newegg is irrelevant.
It won't matter much if Apple doesn't stick with Firewire. They've already eliminated it for the iPods, and for a while they didn't even offer FW800 on their laptops (I believe it's made a re-appearance on the Macbook Pros again).
I'm not sure if it would be easier to build a straight tube in Antarctica or in the Ocean.
I don't see why you would want to build such a thing in Antarctica, as being near the pole you would have very little rotational velocity from the spin of the Earth to help you out. It would make the most sense to build a tube near the equator facing east to me.
And you then need to expend the energy to empty the tube, or energy to shove the ship down. You've saved nothing, and lost efficiency in the energy required to stage the rocket under water.
You're entirely missing the point. A way to externally accelerate the vessel means that the vessel needs to carry less of its own fuel and thus can be smaller and/or carry more payload.
I wish I could have one at work, but people get annoyed at the loud clicking of the keys. So I have to make do with one of the knock-off's out there, the one I use was make by HP.
I was running Debian on a 300 MHz Pentium II back in 2003, when the rest of the world was using Windows XP. Performance wasn't an issue. Windows XP wouldn't have even installed on that hardware, much less run. (I did have Windows 2000 creaking along for a while, though, to run some Windows-only apps.)
The minimum requirements for XP is a 233Mhz processer with 64MB of ram. And while the 64MB seems to be a hard requirement for install, it will run on considerably less. Though I wouldn't want to use it that way.
Personally, I think this misconception continues because Apple's openness threatens Linux. Think about it, if Apple is a great alternative to Windows AND it's pretty open, then Linux just lost its edge. Now, I'm not saying that OS X is as open as Linux or that Apple is as open as, oh, Sun. But the fact that it's pretty open threatens the very point of Linux and thus people continue to try to pretend just the opposite is true; that Apple is somehow more tyrannical or closed than even Microsoft, or at least would be given the opportunity. Bull. Where's the proof of that? All I see are some pretty good attempts by Apple to be open while also making some good products here or there.
I don't consider Apple a threat to Linux, atleast the way they are operating now. In order to run OSX, you need to have Apple hardware, which is an incredibly limited set of hardware when compared to what Linux runs on, or even Windows in many respects. Secondly, I only see Apple as open when it suits them. They aren't very open about the iPod and its associated DRM, or very open about the iPhone, and they aren't very open about Aqua. It's still Apple's playground, and for the most part they still write the rules.
Lastly, I'm getting rather tired of people pretending the Apple of today is similar to the Apple of yesteryear. Most of these people probably only recently switched and never touched a Mac back in the 90's and have no idea just how things were back then.
Really? That must be why it was impossible to install other operating systems on Macs back when they used PowerPC processors.
Oh, wait, it wasn't impossible, and it's hardly Apple's fault that MS never made a PPC port of Windows.
It wasn't impossible, but they didn't make it easy for you back in the day. Typically you had to start the install from inside Mac OS. Ok if you wanted a dual boot machine, annoying otherwise, especially if you had a fresh harddisk and only cared about Linux. You couldn't just boot off the installation media like you could with a PC.
FF/Opera/Safari arent required by the OS. IE is required by the desktop. You cant remove IE/MSHTML from Windows or Explorer (the desktop) stops working. Opera want MS to make the OS and its operation work without IE. If you think the OS works without IE, delete IE, MSHTML*.* and *url* from c:\windows\* and see how long it lasts.... Not long.
That's not true for Safari. I suggest you try removing Safari and the underlying Webkit from a Mac and see how well the OS runs. A lot of things like the help system rely on Webkit for rendering, and a lot of random applications will break. Sure, you can just delete Safari, but that's pretty much the same as deleting iexplore.exe on the Windows machine.
Can you please give me a reference to such mirrors? I work with lasers and I'd love to get hold of a perfect mirror.
Perhaps he was refering to total internal reflection? That's about as perfect as your going to get, though for this application it's not going to work as you would have to have the beam traveling through glass/water/whatever to make it work. Any imperfection or contaminate at all would likely shatter your prism instantly.
From my understanding, a lot of the prefetch data does not show up as "used memory" as the memory is still available to the system. It makes sense, as that memory would instantly be available if you loaded a large picture in Photoshop or something like that. However, once you open Firefox, that memory is no longer available for anything else to grab, so it suddenly counts in the used memory category. This is also why when you add up the numbers, the amount of memory you get can be higher than the amount of memory physically installed in the computer.
They can be interfered with. They don't like dimmers, touch lamps, and some CFL bulbs.
The signal that it syncs with is basically an AM radio signal, so anything that that will mess around with AM radio reception will affect the clock. Also, you'll get a better signal at night too. I got one of those clocks, and it wasn't able to sync the day when I put the batteries in, but the next morning it was all synced up.
Slashdot Mirror
knowing this why would you only set up one truecrypt partition? Your Interrogators expects two, how far will they go before accepting you only had the one?
Well, you could put everything they would be looking for in the 1st partition, bet that would work fine.
So the solution would be to plug the PC directly into the wall?
I think that's why the original poster added in "Be prepared to walk..." when he suggested that.
Really, I wouldn't offer $100 anyway if I wanted the domain back, as an offer of $100 shows that you are interested in it, and that you're willing to offer a non-trivial (by my standards atleast) amount of money to get it back. In which case they will likely come back with some high priced counter offer, and so forth. Seems like an effective way dick around with them and to waste their time, if you really didn't care about the domain much in the first place.
If I wanted it back, I would offer something at the just above the "not worth our time" amount for them, probably around $30 or so. If you stick to your guns and make it clear that you won't pay any more than that, they'll probably end up accepting it since they aren't going to get anything otherwise.
You're the idiot. I live in Minnesota, and on an icy road I'd much rather be in the Escort than some truck or SUV, because if I was to slide off the road I'm a lot less likely to roll the Escort over and be killed. The only real advantage trucks and SUVs have is better traction to help you get started with 4WD and a higher ground clearance to get through deep snow. On the other hand, the larger mass (more inertia), the higher center of gravity, and the poorer handling of the SUV are all liabilities in slippery conditions, which is why you will disproportionally see more SUVs upside-down in the ditch whenever an ice storm hits.
You might want to run the numbers. You can typically rent a minivan for something like $50-$75 per day with unlimited miles. Compare that to the cost of all the extra fuel you burn driving around that larger vehicle for the rest of the year when you don't need it.
If gasoline suddenly became prohibitively expensive, the existing fleet of low-MPG cars could not be upgraded quickly. I'd estimate 5 years to replace enough to significantly affect gasoline demand.
I guess it would depend on how you define prohibitively expensive. If the monthly gas bill starts exceeding the car payment on a new car by a significant amount, they'll be replaced in a hurry.
And anyone who drives a Honda can tell you that yellow is the fastest of all!
Why? The biggest flaw I see with it is that the typical minijack is held in place by soldered electrical connections to a circuit board, but that's not a fault of the plug itself, but cost cutting by manufacturers. Otherwise, you can insert it any direction, the plug doesn't slide out accidently but at the same time doesn't get stuck in the jack, and I don't have any problems with electrical contact either with the plug and socket itself.
Why would you want to connet your Firewire gear to a USB port?
Because you have a USB port and not a Firewire port?
USB doesn't have the features necessary to provide Firewire functionality.
We know that.
When an actual Firewire card costs less than $50, why would you use a silly adapter?
The same reason I have a USB-Ethernet adaptor. I don't have the luxury of installing whatever PCI cards I want in every computer I work on, as not all of them are my computers (or have available PCI slots for that matter).
Probably the main reason that such a device doesn't exist is that pretty much every Firewire device out there also speaks USB anyway, and the ones that don't would be in the 2nd category above and wouldn't work with the adaptor properly.
That's not his point. If all the Firewire drives at Best Buy are $30 more than their USB2-only cousins, people aren't going to be buying. The fact that us geeks put together our own external drives using off-the-shelf ATA/SATA drives and a $25 case off of newegg is irrelevant.
It won't matter much if Apple doesn't stick with Firewire. They've already eliminated it for the iPods, and for a while they didn't even offer FW800 on their laptops (I believe it's made a re-appearance on the Macbook Pros again).
Do we 'need' usb? no. We could get by on just firewire.
Do you really want a Firewire mouse?
I'm not sure if it would be easier to build a straight tube in Antarctica or in the Ocean.
I don't see why you would want to build such a thing in Antarctica, as being near the pole you would have very little rotational velocity from the spin of the Earth to help you out. It would make the most sense to build a tube near the equator facing east to me.
And you then need to expend the energy to empty the tube, or energy to shove the ship down. You've saved nothing, and lost efficiency in the energy required to stage the rocket under water.
You're entirely missing the point. A way to externally accelerate the vessel means that the vessel needs to carry less of its own fuel and thus can be smaller and/or carry more payload.
I wish I could have one at work, but people get annoyed at the loud clicking of the keys. So I have to make do with one of the knock-off's out there, the one I use was make by HP.
I can put mu scepticism away and look forward to the day KDE4 becomes available for Debian Stable.... :)
:)
I agree. 2014 is shaping up to be a good year
I was running Debian on a 300 MHz Pentium II back in 2003, when the rest of the world was using Windows XP. Performance wasn't an issue. Windows XP wouldn't have even installed on that hardware, much less run. (I did have Windows 2000 creaking along for a while, though, to run some Windows-only apps.)
The minimum requirements for XP is a 233Mhz processer with 64MB of ram. And while the 64MB seems to be a hard requirement for install, it will run on considerably less. Though I wouldn't want to use it that way.
Personally, I think this misconception continues because Apple's openness threatens Linux. Think about it, if Apple is a great alternative to Windows AND it's pretty open, then Linux just lost its edge. Now, I'm not saying that OS X is as open as Linux or that Apple is as open as, oh, Sun. But the fact that it's pretty open threatens the very point of Linux and thus people continue to try to pretend just the opposite is true; that Apple is somehow more tyrannical or closed than even Microsoft, or at least would be given the opportunity. Bull. Where's the proof of that? All I see are some pretty good attempts by Apple to be open while also making some good products here or there.
I don't consider Apple a threat to Linux, atleast the way they are operating now. In order to run OSX, you need to have Apple hardware, which is an incredibly limited set of hardware when compared to what Linux runs on, or even Windows in many respects. Secondly, I only see Apple as open when it suits them. They aren't very open about the iPod and its associated DRM, or very open about the iPhone, and they aren't very open about Aqua. It's still Apple's playground, and for the most part they still write the rules.
Lastly, I'm getting rather tired of people pretending the Apple of today is similar to the Apple of yesteryear. Most of these people probably only recently switched and never touched a Mac back in the 90's and have no idea just how things were back then.
Let's leave games/3rd-party software out of it. They are irrelevant to an OS's internal functioning and GUI.
Isn't that the point? It's like saying HDCP won't restrict the use of your TV if you ignore the ability to hook other devices up to it.
Really? That must be why it was impossible to install other operating systems on Macs back when they used PowerPC processors.
Oh, wait, it wasn't impossible, and it's hardly Apple's fault that MS never made a PPC port of Windows.
It wasn't impossible, but they didn't make it easy for you back in the day. Typically you had to start the install from inside Mac OS. Ok if you wanted a dual boot machine, annoying otherwise, especially if you had a fresh harddisk and only cared about Linux. You couldn't just boot off the installation media like you could with a PC.
FF/Opera/Safari arent required by the OS. IE is required by the desktop. You cant remove IE/MSHTML from Windows or Explorer (the desktop) stops working. Opera want MS to make the OS and its operation work without IE. If you think the OS works without IE, delete IE, MSHTML*.* and *url* from c:\windows\* and see how long it lasts.... Not long.
That's not true for Safari. I suggest you try removing Safari and the underlying Webkit from a Mac and see how well the OS runs. A lot of things like the help system rely on Webkit for rendering, and a lot of random applications will break. Sure, you can just delete Safari, but that's pretty much the same as deleting iexplore.exe on the Windows machine.
With our 50% or so crash rate, I don't think you'll find many human volunteers right now.
Yeah, but we have billions of people on the planet, and only couple are needed to go on the mission. I'll go, anyone else?
Can you please give me a reference to such mirrors? I work with lasers and I'd love to get hold of a perfect mirror.
Perhaps he was refering to total internal reflection? That's about as perfect as your going to get, though for this application it's not going to work as you would have to have the beam traveling through glass/water/whatever to make it work. Any imperfection or contaminate at all would likely shatter your prism instantly.
From my understanding, a lot of the prefetch data does not show up as "used memory" as the memory is still available to the system. It makes sense, as that memory would instantly be available if you loaded a large picture in Photoshop or something like that. However, once you open Firefox, that memory is no longer available for anything else to grab, so it suddenly counts in the used memory category. This is also why when you add up the numbers, the amount of memory you get can be higher than the amount of memory physically installed in the computer.
They can be interfered with. They don't like dimmers, touch lamps, and some CFL bulbs.
The signal that it syncs with is basically an AM radio signal, so anything that that will mess around with AM radio reception will affect the clock. Also, you'll get a better signal at night too. I got one of those clocks, and it wasn't able to sync the day when I put the batteries in, but the next morning it was all synced up.