Automatic transmissions (what some call slushboxes), will creep forward on their own if they are in gear and the brake isn't applied. This is quirk of how they work, at least for the hydraulic controlled ones from the 50's-60's. Think of letting the clutch out on a manual transmission while it is in first gear. If the car doesn't stall, it will start moving forward on it's own too.
Nowadays, I don't see why it's not considered a safety issue to have a car that will move on its own with no input from the driver. While this may have been something we would have to live with 50 years ago, it seems with electronically-controlled transmissions this could be solved now. And I especially don't why cars with CVTs, and hybrids and electric cars emulate this behavior when there is no technical reason whatsoever for them to behave like that.
And yes, I have been hit too at low speed while stopped because someone behind me was too busy eating his lunch to keep his foot planted on the brake pedal.
While you've never really had the expectation of privacy, the difference is now everyone is tracked, automatically, the information is stored for years, and you really have no idea who all has access to it. This simply wasn't possible years ago.
There's tons of alternative browsers. For the Firefox lovers, there's Palemoon. Most distros seem to have a build of Chromium available (unless "Chrome" means the Chrome-family of browsers and not Google Chrome). Certain distros also ship with Icecat, which is another Firefox alternative. And then there's other alternatives such a Midori and Qupzilla which are Webkit-based.
I'm calling BS on your computer. Very few computers back then would accept that much memory (pretty much would have to be a high end server board), and to actually put 1.5GB of ram in it would cost a fortune. And if you used Windows, it would have been wasted anyway because Windows back then really didn't know what to do with more than about 512MB.
Also, "good enough" would be a bit different. In the late 90's, the WWW was all the rage, but it would be painfully slow on a computer from the early 90's. Even if you upgraded it as much as you could, you'd maybe have a Pentium Overdrive and 32MB of ram. Not going to cut it.
Well, they are using a different definition of "snowshoe" spammer than the one I've heard used. To me, a snowshoe spammer is one that still sends large amounts of emails out, but spread them out over many, possibly dozens or more, hosting accounts. Much like how a snowshoe spreads your weight over a larger area of snow. The idea being that the volume from the individual accounts are low enough that it doesn't get flagged as spam and they can fly under the radar.
I've got a couple that have been spamming me regularly. The technique is somewhat effective in the sense that it's about the only thing that (sometimes) gets through the spam filters. I've played whack-a-mole with them, but the problem seems to be smaller hosting companies located all over the world that seemingly don't give a shit.
The sea levels rising are real, but a lot of Florida's problems come from them pumping too much fresh water from the ground which is causing the whole state to pretty much sink. Building things on top of swamps, often without any plans to handle the displaced water, didn't help either.
Well, part of the problem is that the prequels already had C3PO and R2D2 in them to serve for comic relief, and to top it off the their antics had already been turned up a few notches compared to the original series. So why do we need yet another comic relief character?
Though I do have to agree that Binks doesn't actually bother me that much. When looking at all the problems that the prequels had, Jar Jar is kind of down a ways on the list.
but then again, i am one of those people who think SW episodes 1, 2, 3 are superior to 4, 5, 6 in almost every aspect. so maybe it is i who has a skewed view of the world.
It was pretty obvious that the Enterprise-D was designed for diplomacy and exploration. Yes, it's armed, but it's not particularly well set up for combat, which is evident from the way the bridge is laid out, how the weapons systems are set up, and the overall design. Which is probably why it tended to get its ass kicked in a lot of combat situations.
Most urban areas get significantly brighter during the night when it's cloudy out because all the light pollution reflects off the clouds (even more so in northern climates when there's also snow on the ground). Obviously, without the streetlights you're going to have a lot less light to reflect, but you could probably get away with a lot less of them.
Microsoft is definitely worried about their consumer business. But on the corporate side, they are pretty well entrenched. And while I'm sure they'd like to get their corporate customers on Windows 10, they still get paid for all those Windows 7 licenses. Microsoft will be a player for years to come.
They did pretty well up to the war with their car and truck business, and the defense contracts kept them afloat during the war. However, they just couldn't compete with the big three after the war. The yearly model changes in the 50's and 60's were brutal for the smaller manufacturers. It just cost too much to keep having to retool every year to keep up with the big players, and offering the same car unchanged for more than a couple of years was basically a kiss of death.
1996 is really before the Internet really hit it big. I'd switch out Yahoo for AOL or maybe Compuserve. Same thing withc Cell phones. Nokia was a big company then (they used to make all kinds of things other than phones) but in 1996 I don't think many in the US knew who they were. Could go with Motorola, or perhaps a company like US Robotics or 3com. Another safe bet, then, 10 years ago, and today would be Intel.
Microsoft is way too entrenched on the corporate side to go anywhere anytime soon. In 20 years there's still going to be companies running Windows desktops, SQL Server, Windows Server, AD, Exchange, TFS, etc. In may very well be on the way out by then, but businesses move too slowly for Microsoft to be gone in 20 years. I could easily believe Microsoft could be dead on the consumer side by then though.
On the other hand, Twitter could easily be gone in half that time.
Apple is a company that makes smartphones and mobile devices. Their computer business is pretty much irrelevant, and at this point is probably gets most of its sales by the need having to use OS X to develop for iOS. As a mobile device company, their situation is a bit more tenuous. People switch phones every couple of years, so all it would take is to release a couple duds in a row to make iOS a has-been. Their only saving grace would be that it would take some time to burn through that massive pile of cash they have.
Microsoft is another interesting case. I don't see them going anywhere in corporate environments in the short or medium term thanks to AD, SQL Server, Exchange, MS Office, Visual Studio and so on. Granted, if they keep on screwing up their Windows releases, they'll lose this market but they are too entrenched for this to happen in the short or even medium term. On the consumer side, their future is a bit more cloudy. If people switch away from Windows (or just stop using PCs altogether) then they could turn into that company that makes the stuff you use at work. Oh and they make the XBox too. Of course, if they get their act together in the mobile side they could some real marketshare pretty quickly.
Amazon - It seems that they really only compete on price. Granted, with their infrastructure they are going to be hard to topple, but are people really loyal Amazon customers?
Google - Their problem is that it's really easy to switch away from many of their products and services (search, Chrome, and to a lesser extent Android). About the only place they've managed to entrench themselves well is with Gmail. I don't see a lot of money in click-through ads either, but they do have their analytics.
Facebook - I agree they are in the most danger. They already have a bit of an "uncool" aura to them, and seem to be starting their decline. If Myspace is any indication, once a critical mass moves away, their decline could be sudden and swift.
Do people actually want Facebook? I can't say I know anyone who really likes Facebook. I know lots of people who just seem to bitch about it. Blah blah timeline blah blah blah. It's just something the people seem to tolerate because that's where all of their friends are at. It's true there have been some pretty high-profile attempts (and failures) to dislodge Facebook from it's throne, but I wouldn't say that's because people wanted Facebook - it's just that the other services really weren't compelling enough to get a critical mass to switch over.
The fact he's got 4GB of ram crammed into suggests that it's one of the later P4's that was LGA775, as it's difficult to get that much ram into a 478 system (and even if you did, I'm not aware of any chipset that let you use more than about 3GB of it). With LGA775, you've got PCI Express, and likely have a gigabit NIC on the motherboard you can use too. While not officially supported by Intel, some of the later Core 2 motherboards would still accept the LGA775 processors. It's actually possible to have a P4 running with DDR3 and a PCI Express x16 2.0 slot.
Unfortunately, the LGA775 P4's are some of the biggest power hogs.
With the right hardware, you're looking at about 30-50W or so if you're going to use an old desktop. The key is to get something new enough that it doesn't draw a lot of power, or something old enough that it doesn't draw a lot of power either. Avoid anything from the P4/Athlon XP era. As someone else mentioned, early Core 2 systems are a good choice. Another one that works well is the Coppermine P3's, some of which were under 10W, though I don't know if a P3 can push through 150Mbps, even more so with only PCI NICs.
I assume it's some kind of agreement between the two major parties. Don't impeach my guy, and I won't impeach yours. Just like how the Democrats didn't impeach Bush for his crimes. Now, Trump may call himself a Republican, but he's really more of an outsider, and if he manages to turn both the of the major political parties against him (which he isn't far from doing, really), they'll sink him one way or the other.
Since you obviously aren't familiar with brands of tools, and you clearly didn't pick it up from the TFA either, Crescent(tm) is a brand of tools based in the USA, and yes they make Crescent(tm) wrenches, or at least used to, until they outsourced the manufacturing to China. What you have is an adjustable wrench, which the Crescent(tm) wrench is a kind of, much like how a Kleenex is a kind of facial tissue.
When you push them, the newest chips have a significant performance boost over the previous generations. The performance gains with Skylake and even Haswell were significant. When you're not pushing them, you're pretty hard-pressed to tell the difference between a Skylake and even a Core 2 Duo.
In the real olden days, you had 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 screens, available even on entry-level laptops. IBM even made a 2048x1536 screen for a while, back when Thinkpads were Thinkpads. Then everything went to shit with 16:9, and we had the dark days of 1366x768 everywhere. It's only been the last year or two where laptop resolutions started to exceed what was common 10 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Automatic transmissions (what some call slushboxes), will creep forward on their own if they are in gear and the brake isn't applied. This is quirk of how they work, at least for the hydraulic controlled ones from the 50's-60's. Think of letting the clutch out on a manual transmission while it is in first gear. If the car doesn't stall, it will start moving forward on it's own too.
Nowadays, I don't see why it's not considered a safety issue to have a car that will move on its own with no input from the driver. While this may have been something we would have to live with 50 years ago, it seems with electronically-controlled transmissions this could be solved now. And I especially don't why cars with CVTs, and hybrids and electric cars emulate this behavior when there is no technical reason whatsoever for them to behave like that.
And yes, I have been hit too at low speed while stopped because someone behind me was too busy eating his lunch to keep his foot planted on the brake pedal.
While you've never really had the expectation of privacy, the difference is now everyone is tracked, automatically, the information is stored for years, and you really have no idea who all has access to it. This simply wasn't possible years ago.
There's tons of alternative browsers. For the Firefox lovers, there's Palemoon. Most distros seem to have a build of Chromium available (unless "Chrome" means the Chrome-family of browsers and not Google Chrome). Certain distros also ship with Icecat, which is another Firefox alternative. And then there's other alternatives such a Midori and Qupzilla which are Webkit-based.
I'm calling BS on your computer. Very few computers back then would accept that much memory (pretty much would have to be a high end server board), and to actually put 1.5GB of ram in it would cost a fortune. And if you used Windows, it would have been wasted anyway because Windows back then really didn't know what to do with more than about 512MB.
Also, "good enough" would be a bit different. In the late 90's, the WWW was all the rage, but it would be painfully slow on a computer from the early 90's. Even if you upgraded it as much as you could, you'd maybe have a Pentium Overdrive and 32MB of ram. Not going to cut it.
1. Sell new car.
2. Profit.
3. Sell another new car.
4. Profit again.
5. Sell trade-in as certified pre-owned.
6. More profit!
Well, they are using a different definition of "snowshoe" spammer than the one I've heard used. To me, a snowshoe spammer is one that still sends large amounts of emails out, but spread them out over many, possibly dozens or more, hosting accounts. Much like how a snowshoe spreads your weight over a larger area of snow. The idea being that the volume from the individual accounts are low enough that it doesn't get flagged as spam and they can fly under the radar.
I've got a couple that have been spamming me regularly. The technique is somewhat effective in the sense that it's about the only thing that (sometimes) gets through the spam filters. I've played whack-a-mole with them, but the problem seems to be smaller hosting companies located all over the world that seemingly don't give a shit.
The sea levels rising are real, but a lot of Florida's problems come from them pumping too much fresh water from the ground which is causing the whole state to pretty much sink. Building things on top of swamps, often without any plans to handle the displaced water, didn't help either.
Well, part of the problem is that the prequels already had C3PO and R2D2 in them to serve for comic relief, and to top it off the their antics had already been turned up a few notches compared to the original series. So why do we need yet another comic relief character?
Though I do have to agree that Binks doesn't actually bother me that much. When looking at all the problems that the prequels had, Jar Jar is kind of down a ways on the list.
Uhhhh.... it's opposite day, isn't it?
It was pretty obvious that the Enterprise-D was designed for diplomacy and exploration. Yes, it's armed, but it's not particularly well set up for combat, which is evident from the way the bridge is laid out, how the weapons systems are set up, and the overall design. Which is probably why it tended to get its ass kicked in a lot of combat situations.
Most urban areas get significantly brighter during the night when it's cloudy out because all the light pollution reflects off the clouds (even more so in northern climates when there's also snow on the ground). Obviously, without the streetlights you're going to have a lot less light to reflect, but you could probably get away with a lot less of them.
Vesta? Though it's not-quite-round shape in my eyes makes it a very large asteroid more than a planet.
Microsoft is definitely worried about their consumer business. But on the corporate side, they are pretty well entrenched. And while I'm sure they'd like to get their corporate customers on Windows 10, they still get paid for all those Windows 7 licenses. Microsoft will be a player for years to come.
They did pretty well up to the war with their car and truck business, and the defense contracts kept them afloat during the war. However, they just couldn't compete with the big three after the war. The yearly model changes in the 50's and 60's were brutal for the smaller manufacturers. It just cost too much to keep having to retool every year to keep up with the big players, and offering the same car unchanged for more than a couple of years was basically a kiss of death.
1996 is really before the Internet really hit it big. I'd switch out Yahoo for AOL or maybe Compuserve. Same thing withc Cell phones. Nokia was a big company then (they used to make all kinds of things other than phones) but in 1996 I don't think many in the US knew who they were. Could go with Motorola, or perhaps a company like US Robotics or 3com. Another safe bet, then, 10 years ago, and today would be Intel.
Microsoft is way too entrenched on the corporate side to go anywhere anytime soon. In 20 years there's still going to be companies running Windows desktops, SQL Server, Windows Server, AD, Exchange, TFS, etc. In may very well be on the way out by then, but businesses move too slowly for Microsoft to be gone in 20 years. I could easily believe Microsoft could be dead on the consumer side by then though.
On the other hand, Twitter could easily be gone in half that time.
Apple is a company that makes smartphones and mobile devices. Their computer business is pretty much irrelevant, and at this point is probably gets most of its sales by the need having to use OS X to develop for iOS. As a mobile device company, their situation is a bit more tenuous. People switch phones every couple of years, so all it would take is to release a couple duds in a row to make iOS a has-been. Their only saving grace would be that it would take some time to burn through that massive pile of cash they have.
Microsoft is another interesting case. I don't see them going anywhere in corporate environments in the short or medium term thanks to AD, SQL Server, Exchange, MS Office, Visual Studio and so on. Granted, if they keep on screwing up their Windows releases, they'll lose this market but they are too entrenched for this to happen in the short or even medium term. On the consumer side, their future is a bit more cloudy. If people switch away from Windows (or just stop using PCs altogether) then they could turn into that company that makes the stuff you use at work. Oh and they make the XBox too. Of course, if they get their act together in the mobile side they could some real marketshare pretty quickly.
Amazon - It seems that they really only compete on price. Granted, with their infrastructure they are going to be hard to topple, but are people really loyal Amazon customers?
Google - Their problem is that it's really easy to switch away from many of their products and services (search, Chrome, and to a lesser extent Android). About the only place they've managed to entrench themselves well is with Gmail. I don't see a lot of money in click-through ads either, but they do have their analytics.
Facebook - I agree they are in the most danger. They already have a bit of an "uncool" aura to them, and seem to be starting their decline. If Myspace is any indication, once a critical mass moves away, their decline could be sudden and swift.
Do people actually want Facebook? I can't say I know anyone who really likes Facebook. I know lots of people who just seem to bitch about it. Blah blah timeline blah blah blah. It's just something the people seem to tolerate because that's where all of their friends are at. It's true there have been some pretty high-profile attempts (and failures) to dislodge Facebook from it's throne, but I wouldn't say that's because people wanted Facebook - it's just that the other services really weren't compelling enough to get a critical mass to switch over.
The fact he's got 4GB of ram crammed into suggests that it's one of the later P4's that was LGA775, as it's difficult to get that much ram into a 478 system (and even if you did, I'm not aware of any chipset that let you use more than about 3GB of it). With LGA775, you've got PCI Express, and likely have a gigabit NIC on the motherboard you can use too. While not officially supported by Intel, some of the later Core 2 motherboards would still accept the LGA775 processors. It's actually possible to have a P4 running with DDR3 and a PCI Express x16 2.0 slot.
Unfortunately, the LGA775 P4's are some of the biggest power hogs.
With the right hardware, you're looking at about 30-50W or so if you're going to use an old desktop. The key is to get something new enough that it doesn't draw a lot of power, or something old enough that it doesn't draw a lot of power either. Avoid anything from the P4/Athlon XP era. As someone else mentioned, early Core 2 systems are a good choice. Another one that works well is the Coppermine P3's, some of which were under 10W, though I don't know if a P3 can push through 150Mbps, even more so with only PCI NICs.
I assume it's some kind of agreement between the two major parties. Don't impeach my guy, and I won't impeach yours. Just like how the Democrats didn't impeach Bush for his crimes. Now, Trump may call himself a Republican, but he's really more of an outsider, and if he manages to turn both the of the major political parties against him (which he isn't far from doing, really), they'll sink him one way or the other.
Since you obviously aren't familiar with brands of tools, and you clearly didn't pick it up from the TFA either, Crescent(tm) is a brand of tools based in the USA, and yes they make Crescent(tm) wrenches, or at least used to, until they outsourced the manufacturing to China. What you have is an adjustable wrench, which the Crescent(tm) wrench is a kind of, much like how a Kleenex is a kind of facial tissue.
When you push them, the newest chips have a significant performance boost over the previous generations. The performance gains with Skylake and even Haswell were significant. When you're not pushing them, you're pretty hard-pressed to tell the difference between a Skylake and even a Core 2 Duo.
A good set of tools is a one-time investment that will literally last a lifetime if you take care of them. After that it's pretty much just supplies.
In the real olden days, you had 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 screens, available even on entry-level laptops. IBM even made a 2048x1536 screen for a while, back when Thinkpads were Thinkpads. Then everything went to shit with 16:9, and we had the dark days of 1366x768 everywhere. It's only been the last year or two where laptop resolutions started to exceed what was common 10 years ago.