Q: How will uTorrent's technology be integrated with the current BitTorrent client?
A: Although uTorrent is lightweight, it is missing the patented innovations BitTorrent has made at the protocol level. It is also lacking an implementation for Mac and Linux. We will improve uTorrent in these arenas.
There's a huge market in counterfeit car parts (typically inferior quality products made to look like the original manufacturer's parts). Genuine car parts can be expensive (e.g. check the price for a headlamp cover on a new car etc.) so counterfeiting operations have become well-established in some countries. Not so good if the counterfeit part in question is vital to the safe operation of the vehicle and hasn't been properly tested or had to meet strict quality control standards.
It's definitely worth picking your battles. Unfortunately, there are many people out there with fixed opinions hardened by beliefs, not reason. If the stiffest challenge to their positions are the straw man arguments fed to them by their cheerleaders, then discussions at the individual level to promote thought and introspection (on both sides) are all the more important. But it can be intensely frustrating! So, whilst it's important not to acquiesce, it is worthwhile focusing effort where it will be the most effective.
If you have an absolute majority of the MPs in Parliament, then (in the absence of a rebellion) you can always force a simple majority in any given vote.
Here's where this fails: the absolute majority is dependent on a sufficient number of MPs a) voting in the first place b) toeing the party line. In a) you have neglected to consider what happens if a number of MPs are unable to vote (e.g. taken ill, out of the country). In a close vote, MPs who are ill are dragged in and ministers abroad do fly back to vote. In b) you beg the question.
I appreciate your views about a simple majority system not necessarily securing a mandate; I don't disagree. Which is why I said this was a small point. I think you're unintentionally using terms that imply an outcome, as evidenced by the conclusions you build using this terminology not being entirely true.
For the last time: I think there's a difference between 'simple majority' and 'absolute majority', that the former means "more votes" and the latter means "more than half the votes of the total number eligible to vote". The quotation marks denote a use-mention distinction. I think the UK parliament uses a simple majority, not an absolute majority system. I would ask, if you think 'absolute majority' means simply more, what you think 'relative majority' means, but, perplexingly, you're still talking about how votes are won.
How can you blame the electorate for rejecting the process if you acknowledge that the process itself is dissembling? It's in the interest of those in power to hold your very views on the electorate because, providing they appeal slightly more than their opponents come voting time, they retain power!
I won't accept the electorate is stupid or apathetic. They may be uninformed, beguiled, and leaderless, and born of the machinations of the current political systems geared to keep them this way. But how can you better a society without the will to engage the people? If you see them as stupid I think you should redouble your efforts in making them understand. If you see them as apathetic, try to understand why this would be so. It's too easy to dismiss them en masse.
If you arrived at your viewpoint from rational reasoning, why couldn't others? If you don't engage them when the opportunity arises are you not apathetic yourself? If you think you're more informed and intelligent do you not have a responsibility to educate? It's a daunting task but: we must be the change we wish to see in the world.
You want more bureaucracy? In all but a few cases, power corrupts. I'll vote for more politicians when the existing lot grow consciences. In the mean time it'd be sensible to have a trigger in place that recognizes the system is broken and forces reform if a certain percentage of people don't vote (or foul their ballot etc.).
I don't think you should so readily dismiss the electorate as stupid or apathetic. Who do you vote for when nobody on the ticket shares your moral values, let alone your ideals? Yes, theoretically you can initiate change in a democratic system yourself but the "first past the post" system ensures that you won't be in a position to do anything important for decades, and probably not even then.
I'm not apathetic; I care about what's done on my behalf so I'm not going to vote for a lesser evil.
No, it's not. As I explained in my earlier post: 'absolute majority' has an understood, specific meaning. As neither the elections nor the votes on bills use this system, saying Blair has an absolute majority would actually be besides the point as the government doesn't need an absolute majority to win a vote, or to be elected into power in the first place. 'Absolute majority' doesn't just mean "there's more of them", which is apparently how you're trying to use it.
Small point: 'Absolute majority' is generally defined as a system that takes into account the total number of potential voters (i.e. those who abstained or were absent are included) in the number required for a majority. In the UK, governments are elected by a simple majority, the "first past the post" system and bills are passed based on counts of those who actually voted.
I see it as some of the actors went through a period when they grew into their characters. Early appearances were perhaps a bit disjointed but it was but a brief period when they were warming up. After that time I think there were many performances that I would characterize as excellent.
I've got a slimline PS2 with the IR receiver built-in on the front so I ended up buying the Sony remote control for it. I think some older models require a plug-in IR receiver device that comes with different version of the remote upgrade. I think there are some third party controllers with similar configurations.
FWIW I really like that remote! What's really neat is that all the controller buttons are present (i.e. D-pad,/\, [], O, X, L1, L2, L3, R1, R2, R3, select, start) and I've used it on some games - usually to switch on the console and go through the initial menus so it's ready to play. There's a full set of DVD controls too (including things like audio, angle, subtitles, top menu etc.), which is a lot more convenient for playing movies. The PS2 joypad is OK for searching (quite intuitive, I think) but you have to resort to the OSD for anything more advanced. When I was using the joypad for DVD playback, I used an old joypad extension cable I bought for my PS1 that made it a lot more convenient because it had a better reach.
I bought a home theatre amp (bundled with a 5.1 speaker package) at a good price and the PS2 is plugged into that with an optical cable. Playing Resi Evil in surround sound is cool!
I don't know when I'll be able to afford one, but there's a space for a PS3 in my set up! The one thing I wish they'd do with consoles is have the facility to insert multiple discs and switch between them (e.g. like the multiple CD player carrousels or cartridge systems). So much better than having to change discs and put them away... or leaving them in piles.
Like having a remote, once you've lived with the convenience it's hard to go back! Wow... I'm so very lazy!
For a moment I thought you were advocating making a cheap surround sound system by using multiple DVD players - i.e. multiple discs, running round to press play at the same time.
Back on topic... I thought it was generally accepted that the PS2 DVD playing ability wasn't the best when compared with dedicated DVD players. And unless you get the PS2 remote control, controlling the DVD from a standard joypad can be cumbersome. Still, the optical out for audio means that it sounds as good as the home theatre amp it's plugged into.
So, like the PS2, the playback abilities of the new PS3 will have greater pull when blu-ray players aren't widespread; when / if they are then it's probably more of a bonus because I suppose the people who want to play blu-ray movies will choose "better" equipment.
IE7 has it. You just click and drag the tab and an insertion cursor appears. Works like you'd expect.
There's plenty of scope for extending the functionality of the tabs. I'd like to have the ability to split the main window into multiple views by dragging a tab down (or to one side). I do a lot of cross referencing so being able to concurrently read from two or more documents would be neat. Sadly, there seems to be less, what I'd call, "pure browsing" innovation and more bolt-on features these days.
BTW: IE7 also does this "Quick Tabs" thing - multiple tabs are represented as thumbnails in their own tab. It's handy when you have a lot of tabs open with similar titles to be able to select the one you want by using a visual preview. I hope there's a FF equivalent or something similar in the works.
One of the extras on the DVD was a tour around the ship, Serenity. They built the whole thing (although it was split over two levels) which allowed them to get the feel of the ship when filming. So it wasn't just separate, simple sets, as I would have expected too.
YMMV depending on how many directories / files start with the same characters - sometimes it's quicker to type in a few characters before hitting the tab key. Other shells offer more advanced completion.
When you say 'screen' I do hope you mean 'plastic casing'. Nothing personal - but if you touch my monitor glass I'll rip your arm off and beat you with it. I consider it the equivalent of someone prodding a greasy finger at the lenses of someone who wears glasses. It's just not done.
And don't get me started on people that poke at the screen with a biro... >>ker-snap<<
Slashdot Mirror
They're playing Twister with their color wheels.
Your subject: Open? And the FAQ says:
There's a huge market in counterfeit car parts (typically inferior quality products made to look like the original manufacturer's parts). Genuine car parts can be expensive (e.g. check the price for a headlamp cover on a new car etc.) so counterfeiting operations have become well-established in some countries. Not so good if the counterfeit part in question is vital to the safe operation of the vehicle and hasn't been properly tested or had to meet strict quality control standards.
Fake car parts danger.
It's definitely worth picking your battles. Unfortunately, there are many people out there with fixed opinions hardened by beliefs, not reason. If the stiffest challenge to their positions are the straw man arguments fed to them by their cheerleaders, then discussions at the individual level to promote thought and introspection (on both sides) are all the more important. But it can be intensely frustrating! So, whilst it's important not to acquiesce, it is worthwhile focusing effort where it will be the most effective.
Here's where this fails: the absolute majority is dependent on a sufficient number of MPs a) voting in the first place b) toeing the party line. In a) you have neglected to consider what happens if a number of MPs are unable to vote (e.g. taken ill, out of the country). In a close vote, MPs who are ill are dragged in and ministers abroad do fly back to vote. In b) you beg the question.
I appreciate your views about a simple majority system not necessarily securing a mandate; I don't disagree. Which is why I said this was a small point. I think you're unintentionally using terms that imply an outcome, as evidenced by the conclusions you build using this terminology not being entirely true.
For the last time: I think there's a difference between 'simple majority' and 'absolute majority', that the former means "more votes" and the latter means "more than half the votes of the total number eligible to vote". The quotation marks denote a use-mention distinction. I think the UK parliament uses a simple majority, not an absolute majority system. I would ask, if you think 'absolute majority' means simply more, what you think 'relative majority' means, but, perplexingly, you're still talking about how votes are won.
How can you blame the electorate for rejecting the process if you acknowledge that the process itself is dissembling? It's in the interest of those in power to hold your very views on the electorate because, providing they appeal slightly more than their opponents come voting time, they retain power!
I won't accept the electorate is stupid or apathetic. They may be uninformed, beguiled, and leaderless, and born of the machinations of the current political systems geared to keep them this way. But how can you better a society without the will to engage the people? If you see them as stupid I think you should redouble your efforts in making them understand. If you see them as apathetic, try to understand why this would be so. It's too easy to dismiss them en masse.
If you arrived at your viewpoint from rational reasoning, why couldn't others? If you don't engage them when the opportunity arises are you not apathetic yourself? If you think you're more informed and intelligent do you not have a responsibility to educate? It's a daunting task but: we must be the change we wish to see in the world.
You want more bureaucracy? In all but a few cases, power corrupts. I'll vote for more politicians when the existing lot grow consciences. In the mean time it'd be sensible to have a trigger in place that recognizes the system is broken and forces reform if a certain percentage of people don't vote (or foul their ballot etc.).
I don't think you should so readily dismiss the electorate as stupid or apathetic. Who do you vote for when nobody on the ticket shares your moral values, let alone your ideals? Yes, theoretically you can initiate change in a democratic system yourself but the "first past the post" system ensures that you won't be in a position to do anything important for decades, and probably not even then.
I'm not apathetic; I care about what's done on my behalf so I'm not going to vote for a lesser evil.
No, it's not. As I explained in my earlier post: 'absolute majority' has an understood, specific meaning. As neither the elections nor the votes on bills use this system, saying Blair has an absolute majority would actually be besides the point as the government doesn't need an absolute majority to win a vote, or to be elected into power in the first place. 'Absolute majority' doesn't just mean "there's more of them", which is apparently how you're trying to use it.
Small point: 'Absolute majority' is generally defined as a system that takes into account the total number of potential voters (i.e. those who abstained or were absent are included) in the number required for a majority. In the UK, governments are elected by a simple majority, the "first past the post" system and bills are passed based on counts of those who actually voted.
Oh, I see it's a nickname:
Ubuntu 6.10 (The Edgy Eft): October 2006
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases
Yes... you're right there is a difference between running a headless server and a desktop!
No flies on you.
Maybe it's a dirty protest?
Is that it? What's 'edgy' about that?
If that is it, then this looks to be an earlier stage in development:P lan/Propose/Results
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtwork
... which is mildly interesting but hardly worth the pun.
I see it as some of the actors went through a period when they grew into their characters. Early appearances were perhaps a bit disjointed but it was but a brief period when they were warming up. After that time I think there were many performances that I would characterize as excellent.
I've got a slimline PS2 with the IR receiver built-in on the front so I ended up buying the Sony remote control for it. I think some older models require a plug-in IR receiver device that comes with different version of the remote upgrade. I think there are some third party controllers with similar configurations.
/\, [], O, X, L1, L2, L3, R1, R2, R3, select, start) and I've used it on some games - usually to switch on the console and go through the initial menus so it's ready to play. There's a full set of DVD controls too (including things like audio, angle, subtitles, top menu etc.), which is a lot more convenient for playing movies. The PS2 joypad is OK for searching (quite intuitive, I think) but you have to resort to the OSD for anything more advanced. When I was using the joypad for DVD playback, I used an old joypad extension cable I bought for my PS1 that made it a lot more convenient because it had a better reach.
FWIW I really like that remote! What's really neat is that all the controller buttons are present (i.e. D-pad,
I bought a home theatre amp (bundled with a 5.1 speaker package) at a good price and the PS2 is plugged into that with an optical cable. Playing Resi Evil in surround sound is cool!
I don't know when I'll be able to afford one, but there's a space for a PS3 in my set up! The one thing I wish they'd do with consoles is have the facility to insert multiple discs and switch between them (e.g. like the multiple CD player carrousels or cartridge systems). So much better than having to change discs and put them away... or leaving them in piles.
Like having a remote, once you've lived with the convenience it's hard to go back! Wow... I'm so very lazy!
Space debris, for one.
For a moment I thought you were advocating making a cheap surround sound system by using multiple DVD players - i.e. multiple discs, running round to press play at the same time.
Back on topic... I thought it was generally accepted that the PS2 DVD playing ability wasn't the best when compared with dedicated DVD players. And unless you get the PS2 remote control, controlling the DVD from a standard joypad can be cumbersome. Still, the optical out for audio means that it sounds as good as the home theatre amp it's plugged into.
So, like the PS2, the playback abilities of the new PS3 will have greater pull when blu-ray players aren't widespread; when / if they are then it's probably more of a bonus because I suppose the people who want to play blu-ray movies will choose "better" equipment.
I thought that would be a logical addition.
IE7 has it. You just click and drag the tab and an insertion cursor appears. Works like you'd expect.
There's plenty of scope for extending the functionality of the tabs. I'd like to have the ability to split the main window into multiple views by dragging a tab down (or to one side). I do a lot of cross referencing so being able to concurrently read from two or more documents would be neat. Sadly, there seems to be less, what I'd call, "pure browsing" innovation and more bolt-on features these days.
BTW: IE7 also does this "Quick Tabs" thing - multiple tabs are represented as thumbnails in their own tab. It's handy when you have a lot of tabs open with similar titles to be able to select the one you want by using a visual preview. I hope there's a FF equivalent or something similar in the works.
One of the extras on the DVD was a tour around the ship, Serenity. They built the whole thing (although it was split over two levels) which allowed them to get the feel of the ship when filming. So it wasn't just separate, simple sets, as I would have expected too.
Finally, a funny joke in this morass of weak puns!
Tab completion e.g. c:\d [tab] \u [tab] \m [tab] \m [tab] \b [tab]
YMMV depending on how many directories / files start with the same characters - sometimes it's quicker to type in a few characters before hitting the tab key. Other shells offer more advanced completion.
When you say 'screen' I do hope you mean 'plastic casing'. Nothing personal - but if you touch my monitor glass I'll rip your arm off and beat you with it. I consider it the equivalent of someone prodding a greasy finger at the lenses of someone who wears glasses. It's just not done.
And don't get me started on people that poke at the screen with a biro... >>ker-snap<<
Tell them they can pretend to be giants eating small trees.