Oh, it wasn't so bad at all. I mean, comparing to the average Hollywood movie, both characters and the plot were working nicely.
What I especially liked about Final Fantasy is that it had an extraordinary sense of realism. Films with actors tend to be a lot less realistic especially about what people and vehicles can or cannot do;).
Yeah, it's a complicated thing. However, it's not too complicated for a university student to figure out. Yeah, lots of work, but nothing incomprehensible.
The natural division for the kind of solution we want is between analytic and numeric kinds. Analytic solution is generally not possible for many bodies although the other planets don't really contribute that much at all. I guess, at least when one's playing around with interesting physics and not actually sending humans to space, considering earth, moon, mars, jupiter and sun would be more than enough. Still, analytically, you'll have to break the problem up into pieces and use tricks to correct for some gravities.
But really, for what I can tell, you'd want to switch to numerical simulation after getting a good guess from two-body analytical math. Basically, use a computer program to apply Newton's laws to predict where everything will be after delta-t seconds, repeat, done. This is a computationally intensive task but much easier mathematically. Or, it's as hard as you want to make it. You could simply use a very small delta-t, but I think practical solutions first calculate a trajectory considering only the sun, then calculate how much Jupiter and other bodies would have changed that trajectory for each timestep.
I can't seem to find all the neat pages I've googled about it, but http://my.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_sim.html seems to be a good place to start (concentrating on the atmospheric flight tho).
I'll have to apologise some of my last post that wasn't really thought out very well. I was so completely dumbfound by the idea that people owning more land should be entitled to more pollution. That sounds like a clumsy justification for an advantageous situation. I suppose, thinking it out, that it's a logical extension of strong feeling of property and capitalist liberalism that roam so strongly in USA.
Now, if I really understood what you said, USA and China should be entitled to equal pollution because they have equal area. This right is inherited, as the area of USA was determined centuries ago. USA population is thus more privileged by birthright, and nobody can do anything about it other than invade the USA.
Now superiority by inheritance just doesn't fit into my moral code. I'm a fan of equal opportunities for everyone. Capitalism is great for rewarding the more able but it sucks for rewarding the no-good inheritors. Sure, those born in western developed countries have their living standards higher than those born elsewhere. They have not earned it in any way. They don't deserve better any more than developing nations deserve worse. It can't be helped greatly and it doesn't even matter that much. It's the opportunities that matter. Every smart kid is equally entitled to developing their talent. Reality sometimes comes in the way which is sad and should be worked on.
Call that international communism if you like. I call it fair. Fairness should apply to individuals because individuals are not responsible for their ancestors' actions or their country's land area or administration.
As I said in another post, the output of CO2 in China and the United States would be roughly equal ''even in the absense of mankind''. Whether you're "damaging the Earth" through overpopulation or through innovation and productivity shouldn't matter.
China is not overpopulating any more than USA is innovating. It's the people that are. And by the way, chinese population is growing slower (.58%) than american (.92%). "In absence of mankind" is a highly hypothetical state of affairs that has no practical nor theoretical significance. To me the question is whether mankind can rise above the animals in questions like morals and cooperation. Equal opportunies and rights are a prerequisite to mutual respect.
Oh well. My attempt to understand US-thought is like running in a tarpit. At least I'm understanding my own thinking more by writing this sort of stuff.
You're basically telling the Chinese that each person in USA is worth ten times what a Chinaman is. I thought thinking in terms of landmass was the thing of colonial era. Then again, USA might still be living the colonial era for what I know. Anyhow, such better-than-you thinking will hopefully result in the chinese moving en masse to USA, to even up the number of persons per land area.
I think USA and its people would really benefit from two experiences nearly all other countries have had to face. Invasion, and a socialist uprising. Especially the invasion thing might teach something about cooperation and respect.
Let me go back to what I said earlier. Nobody, or all of us, own this planet here. That said, it's logical to assume each person "owns" the same amount of it or has an equal right to natural resources.
If you'd count emissions per nation people living in places like Monaco could spend all they want while people in China would be entitled to one cigarette a day max. Hardly fair. And everybody arrogant and selfish enough would start one-person states to sell emission rights and pollute all they want.
The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.
True, the Kyoto protocol has its problems. It would need to be global to work well. It isn't (USA and others to blame). Also, it has a division between developed and undeveloped countries which I think serves a purpose in making it global but that may lessen its ability to drop pollution levels.
The "second biggest procucer", China, has its per capita carbon emissions at one tenth of that of USA and one of the lowest in the world, which really, well, destroys your point. I think the per capita figure really is the one you should be looking at and I think you can agree.
No, calling carbon dioxide pollution is a lame excuse for taxing progress.
A-ha, you seem to think carbon dioxide doesn't do any harm. Well, it is a greenhouse gas so we know at least one method in which it is capable of doing harm. Human-made carbon dioxide emissions are now 26 billion metric tons per year. Granted, nature is still emitting more, but ours is already a significant portion. We've managed to increase the amount of CO2 in the air by 30%. Imagine there being 30% more oxygen or water in a couple of decades - that'd be a disaster although neither is poisonous in any way.
We don't have a perfect understanding of the workings of this planet here. As such I'd rather not double or triple any number about it. The Kyoto protocol has its shortcomings but it's the best thing that is actually happening. I prefer things that actually happen over criticism that doesn't offer a viable alternative.
A tax for not living in the stone ages sounds like a bad thing to a lot of people.
How terribly shortsighted of the lot. It is a tax for polluting our only, shared, planet. Throwing away things you don't need is a practice from stone age and it's getting increasingly dangerous now that we possess things that are far more poisonous than animal bones. Well, we can't really not throw away carbon dioxide now, but that's only because we're still living a stone age when it comes to recycling.
You know, I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property. That's law everywhere. Now, nobody, or all of us, really own this planet, so the payment is not a simple transaction. I think the model of polluters-pay-non-polluters fulfills this moral principle in a sound way. Sure, the more developped nations pollute more now, but that doesn't change anything. That's a lame excuse. Development does not necessarily involve pollution and even if it would it wouldn't change the moral responsibility involved.
No she didn't. I know I needed the helmet to breathe and I guess she was right. After all, I died when my son finally came to meet me and removed the helmet after all that sith thing. You know, he actually taught me a thing or two. Fear leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to suffering. Or something like that.
Ok must stop ranting and posting anonymously about my so called goverment. After all I'd hate for a prospective employer to figure out I have different political views;p
That's exactly what is wrong with the world. The intelligent people don't go into politics, arguments, protests.. They don't do anything that might risk their nice, nonconfrontational, happy, intelligent life. They're better off that way.
Meanwhile the unintelligent.. Well, I don't have to say what they do, you know already.
I am alarmed by you and others not understanding science. Newton's law is completely valid given that speeds are slow. It's a subset of Einstein's theory which itself is true in all cases as far as we know. Surely, these theories are incomplete - that's why the scientists have been trying to find the grand theory of everything, you know. The science is not the whole truth, but that doesn't make it false.
Sure, schools are dumb because they don't teach anything about the scope or validity of different theories and equations like E = mgh. That's a shortcoming of the school, not of the science (which is a tool for modelling the reality!).
String theory and multiple universes are superstitions currently. There's work happening on both, but no sane man would really "believe" either. The theory of evolution or big bang however are "tested" by evidence. Both do a good job explaining how the universe came to be what it is today. Religion and ID don't. Instead of explaining anything they assume someone decided things this way. I might take ID a wee bit more seriously if it tried to explain WHY the creator made the world like what it is.
Man-made evolution can be found in artificial intelligence labs. Check
Avida for example.
Now while some theories (like Newton's and Einsteins') are very solid and very tested, evolution and big bang are not. Still they're a good deal more than mere hypothesis (like ID).
And, contrary to your belief, theories can be disproved without proving an alternative.
Science is a way of sound assumptions, evidence and logic. It's not a complete explanation of everything, but it's the best one, a "best guess". It's not about faith as a scientist does not have to believe in anything. A theory is more than an explanation, it's a model. Every theory allows predictions, and a theory can be valuable even when its predictions are false. So we have this set of models which seem the most likely - there's no faith in it.
It's not you that we vilify, it is your leaders, policies, methods and religion. You yankees take everything so personally. We aren't boycotting your freedom fries or anything, are we?
I would recommend you'd check the situation of Nepal now. It was a democracy before the king took power using a state of emergency against an organized Maoist guerilla army. The maoists have (or had) popular support, and the only thing that has been holding them back has been supplies. Yeah, Kathmandu still works whenever there's not a general strike (which happens almost every other day during tougher times), but the government has little if any control over the countryside. There are of course many notable differences between Nepal and USA, but many similiar tactics would work. And in USA, no guerilla army would have any difficulties reaching weapons, ammunition or food.
Killing a couple of congress people would be possible I guess.
Announcing a general strike is easy. The guerillas only need to say anybody going to work or working might be shot at, and businesses open that day might be blown up. The strike will be obeyed.
Civilian participation in government is harder. Threatening and trying to kill anyone who's working for government (maybe not federal, but state administrations) will have an impact. Maybe not crippling, but damaging for sure.
About logistics.. The 5 million army would be scattered. There's a lot of food and drinking water in USA, and the army will have enough if they have popular support (or if they're threatening everyone to get what they need). Administration on the other hand would be near impossible as any electrical means of communication would be jammed.
Last but not least, the leader. It doesn't take an antichrist to lead such. Think of Mao or Nepal's Prachanda. Or Bush. He just needs to be a good leader, have a Cause (there is one) and a working propaganda machine. The Cause is more important than any military strength as a just cause will earn supporters and supplies. If many people don't like Bush or the Two Parties, they won't fight to defend them. We both know how many Iraqis fought gallantly to defend Saddam;).
I'm not saying this guerilla war would succeed quickly or at all, but it definitely has a chance. Maybe they couldn't seize power, but they could definitely make demands and have their way.
Here's another plan:
1) Start local groups in every city. Grow and train while spewing out some propaganda. Participate in politics peacefully.
2) Noisy demands, strikes.
3) Declare failure of peaceful democracy. Conduct surprise attacks. Destroy local administration. Loot arms factories.
4) Go undercover. Capture soldiers' families and blackmail those who fight against the revolution. Destroy communications facilities.
5) With sufficient force, establish local administration in cities and states. If that works, go for the White House.
Gee, do they have telephone lines there? Why not use the same copper for dsl? Granted, copper quality might be a problem if it was made by the lowest bidder decades ago.
While I totally agree with the points about stable, I also need features that the stable relic lacks. I need a stateful firewall and other goodies. And sometimes I even need to compile shiny new software which is sometimes a total bitch on an old distribution.
Sure, debian stable is stable, but look, there are other incredibly stable linuxes out there.
The power consumption seems similiar to the Pentium M, so the heat must also be. How hot the laptop-bottoms get depend on their design.
What I do with my laptop is put a paper folder between it and my lap. It's sturdy, has lots of paper for insulation and it's a bit soft, so it's really more comfortable in every way;). Plus, I always have the folder with me.
No, I can only get 4 hours max, and playing games etc takes the battery life down to 2-3h. Centrino thing, 1.4GHz with Radeon 9600.. I love it for games too:).
A customer inserting his plug to your socket would be trespassing? I cannot imagine this being any more true than a customer placing his foot on your floor, or using your toilet. Both things cost for the restaurant owner, and I've never seen either being explicitly allowed. Are you saying I should stop using restaurant toilets (without asking) to avoid getting sued?
Be what may, setting up traps is illegal in civilized places. Why not simply cover your sockets with "You want my power? Sod off!" - signs?
Cellphones, ipods and even portable computers are not that power hungry that it would matter. I consider using the power outlets included in what I pay for coffee, airport tax or whatever. Just like I don't pay extra for breathing air from businesses' ventilator systems (which probably costs more than the power). If some business doesn't like me charging my laptop, I choose to go elsewhere.
For reference, my portable computer's battery is rated 14.8V, 4400mAh. That roughly equals 65 watt-hours. The biggest cost of electricity I found is 9 cents per kWh, so filling the battery from empty to full would cost less than 0.6 cents. I will gladly pay 0.6 cents extra to use my laptop wherever I go, if asked for.
You quoted it. "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." That means "proves that they have WMDs". If it doesn't prove then there still is doubt. WMDs are "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised". W and D are easy, all weapons destruct. A grenade is totally lethal if it hits anywhere close, so "more lethal" must mean "kills masses of people".
I'm saying he knew he didn't have proof while he said he did. He put it very cleverly, tho. The quote MIGHT still be interpreted otherwise, but I'm sure nobody did at the time. I don't care that much what his exact phrases were, the point is what he makes us believe. He should not mislead us, on purpose or accidentally.
If he wasn't deliberately misleading, he was incompetent in judging. "Don't account to evil what can be explained by incompetence", I saw somewhere. Either way, evil or incompetent, he shouldn't be in power.
And if you're one of the believing americans, why not make the existence of WMDs a matter of faith. I for one cannot overlook real evidence.
He did say he has proof of wmds. I wonder what the proof was. A satellite image of a factory-like building? Well, the proof surely didn't point to "anything specific".
There's really nothing right about war, nor could there be a "right" to harm others. One shouldn't pretend that mass destruction could be justifiable. It can't. That aside, sometimes it might be necessary evil, but never forget it's evil. Or you might end up.. Well, making the same mistakes USA is making.
Certainly, in serious, necessary war we all expect our enemies to target and destroy whatever they can. Bullying EU at current times is something different. It's like telling your roommate or neighbor that you feel intimidated about the fact they own a gun/knife and that you might need to kill them in case you were worried enough someday.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it wasn't so bad at all. I mean, comparing to the average Hollywood movie, both characters and the plot were working nicely.
What I especially liked about Final Fantasy is that it had an extraordinary sense of realism. Films with actors tend to be a lot less realistic especially about what people and vehicles can or cannot do ;).
Yeah, it's a complicated thing. However, it's not too complicated for a university student to figure out. Yeah, lots of work, but nothing incomprehensible.
The natural division for the kind of solution we want is between analytic and numeric kinds. Analytic solution is generally not possible for many bodies although the other planets don't really contribute that much at all. I guess, at least when one's playing around with interesting physics and not actually sending humans to space, considering earth, moon, mars, jupiter and sun would be more than enough. Still, analytically, you'll have to break the problem up into pieces and use tricks to correct for some gravities.
But really, for what I can tell, you'd want to switch to numerical simulation after getting a good guess from two-body analytical math. Basically, use a computer program to apply Newton's laws to predict where everything will be after delta-t seconds, repeat, done. This is a computationally intensive task but much easier mathematically. Or, it's as hard as you want to make it. You could simply use a very small delta-t, but I think practical solutions first calculate a trajectory considering only the sun, then calculate how much Jupiter and other bodies would have changed that trajectory for each timestep.
I can't seem to find all the neat pages I've googled about it, but http://my.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/rckt_sim.html seems to be a good place to start (concentrating on the atmospheric flight tho).
I'll have to apologise some of my last post that wasn't really thought out very well. I was so completely dumbfound by the idea that people owning more land should be entitled to more pollution. That sounds like a clumsy justification for an advantageous situation. I suppose, thinking it out, that it's a logical extension of strong feeling of property and capitalist liberalism that roam so strongly in USA.
Now, if I really understood what you said, USA and China should be entitled to equal pollution because they have equal area. This right is inherited, as the area of USA was determined centuries ago. USA population is thus more privileged by birthright, and nobody can do anything about it other than invade the USA.
Now superiority by inheritance just doesn't fit into my moral code. I'm a fan of equal opportunities for everyone. Capitalism is great for rewarding the more able but it sucks for rewarding the no-good inheritors. Sure, those born in western developed countries have their living standards higher than those born elsewhere. They have not earned it in any way. They don't deserve better any more than developing nations deserve worse. It can't be helped greatly and it doesn't even matter that much. It's the opportunities that matter. Every smart kid is equally entitled to developing their talent. Reality sometimes comes in the way which is sad and should be worked on.
Call that international communism if you like. I call it fair. Fairness should apply to individuals because individuals are not responsible for their ancestors' actions or their country's land area or administration.
As I said in another post, the output of CO2 in China and the United States would be roughly equal ''even in the absense of mankind''. Whether you're "damaging the Earth" through overpopulation or through innovation and productivity shouldn't matter.
China is not overpopulating any more than USA is innovating. It's the people that are. And by the way, chinese population is growing slower (.58%) than american (.92%). "In absence of mankind" is a highly hypothetical state of affairs that has no practical nor theoretical significance. To me the question is whether mankind can rise above the animals in questions like morals and cooperation. Equal opportunies and rights are a prerequisite to mutual respect.
Oh well. My attempt to understand US-thought is like running in a tarpit. At least I'm understanding my own thinking more by writing this sort of stuff.
You're basically telling the Chinese that each person in USA is worth ten times what a Chinaman is. I thought thinking in terms of landmass was the thing of colonial era. Then again, USA might still be living the colonial era for what I know. Anyhow, such better-than-you thinking will hopefully result in the chinese moving en masse to USA, to even up the number of persons per land area.
I think USA and its people would really benefit from two experiences nearly all other countries have had to face. Invasion, and a socialist uprising. Especially the invasion thing might teach something about cooperation and respect.
Let me go back to what I said earlier. Nobody, or all of us, own this planet here. That said, it's logical to assume each person "owns" the same amount of it or has an equal right to natural resources.
If you'd count emissions per nation people living in places like Monaco could spend all they want while people in China would be entitled to one cigarette a day max. Hardly fair. And everybody arrogant and selfish enough would start one-person states to sell emission rights and pollute all they want.
The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.
True, the Kyoto protocol has its problems. It would need to be global to work well. It isn't (USA and others to blame). Also, it has a division between developed and undeveloped countries which I think serves a purpose in making it global but that may lessen its ability to drop pollution levels.
The "second biggest procucer", China, has its per capita carbon emissions at one tenth of that of USA and one of the lowest in the world, which really, well, destroys your point. I think the per capita figure really is the one you should be looking at and I think you can agree.
No, calling carbon dioxide pollution is a lame excuse for taxing progress.
A-ha, you seem to think carbon dioxide doesn't do any harm. Well, it is a greenhouse gas so we know at least one method in which it is capable of doing harm. Human-made carbon dioxide emissions are now 26 billion metric tons per year. Granted, nature is still emitting more, but ours is already a significant portion. We've managed to increase the amount of CO2 in the air by 30%. Imagine there being 30% more oxygen or water in a couple of decades - that'd be a disaster although neither is poisonous in any way.
We don't have a perfect understanding of the workings of this planet here. As such I'd rather not double or triple any number about it. The Kyoto protocol has its shortcomings but it's the best thing that is actually happening. I prefer things that actually happen over criticism that doesn't offer a viable alternative.
How terribly shortsighted of the lot. It is a tax for polluting our only, shared, planet. Throwing away things you don't need is a practice from stone age and it's getting increasingly dangerous now that we possess things that are far more poisonous than animal bones. Well, we can't really not throw away carbon dioxide now, but that's only because we're still living a stone age when it comes to recycling.
You know, I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property. That's law everywhere. Now, nobody, or all of us, really own this planet, so the payment is not a simple transaction. I think the model of polluters-pay-non-polluters fulfills this moral principle in a sound way. Sure, the more developped nations pollute more now, but that doesn't change anything. That's a lame excuse. Development does not necessarily involve pollution and even if it would it wouldn't change the moral responsibility involved.
No she didn't. I know I needed the helmet to breathe and I guess she was right. After all, I died when my son finally came to meet me and removed the helmet after all that sith thing. You know, he actually taught me a thing or two. Fear leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to suffering. Or something like that.
Why do we need to spend money to convince nations we're not their enemy? Can't we just leave them alone?
Yes, that would indeed be a very good start.
Ok must stop ranting and posting anonymously about my so called goverment. After all I'd hate for a prospective employer to figure out I have different political views ;p
That's exactly what is wrong with the world. The intelligent people don't go into politics, arguments, protests.. They don't do anything that might risk their nice, nonconfrontational, happy, intelligent life. They're better off that way.
Meanwhile the unintelligent.. Well, I don't have to say what they do, you know already.
I for one, am all for putting the fear of GOD into mad petty dictators if it keeps them from launching wars.
Oh, now USA is a god?
I am alarmed by you and others not understanding science. Newton's law is completely valid given that speeds are slow. It's a subset of Einstein's theory which itself is true in all cases as far as we know. Surely, these theories are incomplete - that's why the scientists have been trying to find the grand theory of everything, you know. The science is not the whole truth, but that doesn't make it false.
Sure, schools are dumb because they don't teach anything about the scope or validity of different theories and equations like E = mgh. That's a shortcoming of the school, not of the science (which is a tool for modelling the reality!).
String theory and multiple universes are superstitions currently. There's work happening on both, but no sane man would really "believe" either. The theory of evolution or big bang however are "tested" by evidence. Both do a good job explaining how the universe came to be what it is today. Religion and ID don't. Instead of explaining anything they assume someone decided things this way. I might take ID a wee bit more seriously if it tried to explain WHY the creator made the world like what it is.
Man-made evolution can be found in artificial intelligence labs. Check Avida for example.
Now while some theories (like Newton's and Einsteins') are very solid and very tested, evolution and big bang are not. Still they're a good deal more than mere hypothesis (like ID).
And, contrary to your belief, theories can be disproved without proving an alternative.
Science is a way of sound assumptions, evidence and logic. It's not a complete explanation of everything, but it's the best one, a "best guess". It's not about faith as a scientist does not have to believe in anything. A theory is more than an explanation, it's a model. Every theory allows predictions, and a theory can be valuable even when its predictions are false. So we have this set of models which seem the most likely - there's no faith in it.
Only a wise man knows how little he knows.
Gee, hide your children and tell them to stay out of the way. It's really stupid to arm one's children.
It's not you that we vilify, it is your leaders, policies, methods and religion. You yankees take everything so personally. We aren't boycotting your freedom fries or anything, are we?
I would recommend you'd check the situation of Nepal now. It was a democracy before the king took power using a state of emergency against an organized Maoist guerilla army. The maoists have (or had) popular support, and the only thing that has been holding them back has been supplies. Yeah, Kathmandu still works whenever there's not a general strike (which happens almost every other day during tougher times), but the government has little if any control over the countryside. There are of course many notable differences between Nepal and USA, but many similiar tactics would work. And in USA, no guerilla army would have any difficulties reaching weapons, ammunition or food.
Killing a couple of congress people would be possible I guess.
Announcing a general strike is easy. The guerillas only need to say anybody going to work or working might be shot at, and businesses open that day might be blown up. The strike will be obeyed.
Civilian participation in government is harder. Threatening and trying to kill anyone who's working for government (maybe not federal, but state administrations) will have an impact. Maybe not crippling, but damaging for sure.
About logistics.. The 5 million army would be scattered. There's a lot of food and drinking water in USA, and the army will have enough if they have popular support (or if they're threatening everyone to get what they need). Administration on the other hand would be near impossible as any electrical means of communication would be jammed.
Last but not least, the leader. It doesn't take an antichrist to lead such. Think of Mao or Nepal's Prachanda. Or Bush. He just needs to be a good leader, have a Cause (there is one) and a working propaganda machine. The Cause is more important than any military strength as a just cause will earn supporters and supplies. If many people don't like Bush or the Two Parties, they won't fight to defend them. We both know how many Iraqis fought gallantly to defend Saddam ;).
I'm not saying this guerilla war would succeed quickly or at all, but it definitely has a chance. Maybe they couldn't seize power, but they could definitely make demands and have their way.
Here's another plan:
1) Start local groups in every city. Grow and train while spewing out some propaganda. Participate in politics peacefully.
2) Noisy demands, strikes.
3) Declare failure of peaceful democracy. Conduct surprise attacks. Destroy local administration. Loot arms factories.
4) Go undercover. Capture soldiers' families and blackmail those who fight against the revolution. Destroy communications facilities.
5) With sufficient force, establish local administration in cities and states. If that works, go for the White House.
Gee, do they have telephone lines there? Why not use the same copper for dsl? Granted, copper quality might be a problem if it was made by the lowest bidder decades ago.
While I totally agree with the points about stable, I also need features that the stable relic lacks. I need a stateful firewall and other goodies. And sometimes I even need to compile shiny new software which is sometimes a total bitch on an old distribution.
Sure, debian stable is stable, but look, there are other incredibly stable linuxes out there.
The power consumption seems similiar to the Pentium M, so the heat must also be. How hot the laptop-bottoms get depend on their design. What I do with my laptop is put a paper folder between it and my lap. It's sturdy, has lots of paper for insulation and it's a bit soft, so it's really more comfortable in every way ;). Plus, I always have the folder with me.
No, I can only get 4 hours max, and playing games etc takes the battery life down to 2-3h. Centrino thing, 1.4GHz with Radeon 9600.. I love it for games too :).
A customer inserting his plug to your socket would be trespassing? I cannot imagine this being any more true than a customer placing his foot on your floor, or using your toilet. Both things cost for the restaurant owner, and I've never seen either being explicitly allowed. Are you saying I should stop using restaurant toilets (without asking) to avoid getting sued?
Be what may, setting up traps is illegal in civilized places. Why not simply cover your sockets with "You want my power? Sod off!" - signs?
Cellphones, ipods and even portable computers are not that power hungry that it would matter. I consider using the power outlets included in what I pay for coffee, airport tax or whatever. Just like I don't pay extra for breathing air from businesses' ventilator systems (which probably costs more than the power). If some business doesn't like me charging my laptop, I choose to go elsewhere.
For reference, my portable computer's battery is rated 14.8V, 4400mAh. That roughly equals 65 watt-hours. The biggest cost of electricity I found is 9 cents per kWh, so filling the battery from empty to full would cost less than 0.6 cents. I will gladly pay 0.6 cents extra to use my laptop wherever I go, if asked for.
You quoted it. "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." That means "proves that they have WMDs". If it doesn't prove then there still is doubt. WMDs are "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised". W and D are easy, all weapons destruct. A grenade is totally lethal if it hits anywhere close, so "more lethal" must mean "kills masses of people".
I'm saying he knew he didn't have proof while he said he did. He put it very cleverly, tho. The quote MIGHT still be interpreted otherwise, but I'm sure nobody did at the time. I don't care that much what his exact phrases were, the point is what he makes us believe. He should not mislead us, on purpose or accidentally.
If he wasn't deliberately misleading, he was incompetent in judging. "Don't account to evil what can be explained by incompetence", I saw somewhere. Either way, evil or incompetent, he shouldn't be in power.
And if you're one of the believing americans, why not make the existence of WMDs a matter of faith. I for one cannot overlook real evidence.
He did say he has proof of wmds. I wonder what the proof was. A satellite image of a factory-like building? Well, the proof surely didn't point to "anything specific".
There's really nothing right about war, nor could there be a "right" to harm others. One shouldn't pretend that mass destruction could be justifiable. It can't. That aside, sometimes it might be necessary evil, but never forget it's evil. Or you might end up.. Well, making the same mistakes USA is making.
Certainly, in serious, necessary war we all expect our enemies to target and destroy whatever they can. Bullying EU at current times is something different. It's like telling your roommate or neighbor that you feel intimidated about the fact they own a gun/knife and that you might need to kill them in case you were worried enough someday.