Well, I'm not so sure. I've built a lot of webservers, I'm familiar and comfortable with apache. Sure I can buy a RJ-45 jack sized webserver that runs thhtpd or whatever, it's just no t that impressive to use that webserver as a proof of concept. But, by using Apache, you not only get the added functionality that that brings, but you also demonstrate that this isn't a crippled webserver implementation, it's a full fledged Unix box that arbitrary app (n) will run on.
The only shiny part on the back of the iPhone is an Apple-logo-sized, er, apple logo. The rest of it is matte finished. That said, my iPod didn't stay mirror-like very long.
That and I'm a geek, why would I want to look in a mirror? I checked this morning, I'm more or less within tolerance.
It's not about cost, it's about that mythical 1.3 conversion number that we get from the ethanol industry. I don't buy it. Not for corn, not for sugar. Independent analysts (employing common sense and basic physics) realize that we will always see a net loss. It's even arguable whether or not ethanol fuel will result in less net pollution because alcohol is so much less efficient than gasoline. The thing is, to the consumer, price at the pump is what they are going to decide on. Hidden subsidy costs are just that, hidden. Do you count the cost of military activities in oil-rich countries in the cost? Maybe, but you don't see that cost at the pump. Or maybe we do. But at the end of the day, if I can get to work for 5 bucks a day instead of 6, I'll go with the apparently cheaper solution.
The choice is not between oil and ethanol, but between oil and nuclear. We have to cope with the fact that our domestic and global energy needs aren't going down, they're going up dramatically. So far, nuclear is the only system we've developed to which provides energy efficiency comparable to fossil fuels. Maybe in the distant future we will have more efficient solar systems and there is always hot fusion. But RIGHT NOW, nuclear seems the way to go. Absolutely. I think it's criminal that the US hasn't built a new nuke plant in decades. It amazes me that people who pretend to be environmentalists buy into, and sometimes help spread the FUD around nuclear power. NO, Chernobyl can't happen here, for at least the following several solid reasons (insert reasons here), but, they start quoting that and 30 year old movies and the non-event of Three Mile Island for why we shouldn't be using more nuke power. It's really disheartening to see someone who claims to be an environmentalist, but who fights against the obvious solution to the problem.
That said, it won't help me today with my existing car, or any car I'm likely to buy in the forseeable future. Until plugins are ready for a 100 mile per day round trip, they won't do me any good. But, once they are, I'll be all over it.
Someone, maybe you, mentioned that biofuels are really for legacy support. That's a good way to put it. Today's cars and distribution networks/systems are set up for liquid delivery. Here's a progression that to me, makes sense:
1. (today) Mostly dino-fuels, small amount of bio
2. Increase biofuels using same infrastructure, distributions, and vehicles.
3. Add hydrogen (if viable) vehicles and fueling stations to existing infrastructures. This allows people to drive to the same businesses which are currently selling them gas/diesel, this just adds a third option. But, it can come from existing power systems (using carbon-based fuels), or:
4. Nuclear-based generation of Hydrogen for vehicles, providing a fuel source and emissions free of carbon.
Each of these steps is an incremental change from where we are today. Social inertia being what it is, jumping from step 1 all the way to step 4 is too much for the masses to understand/accept/adopt. But I think step 4, in some form, is where we want to end up. Let's do it in such a way that we don't break the existing modes, or diverge too far from them all at once.
If you think that until Bush was in office, the muslim countries didn't hate us, then your lack of history knowledge is astonishing.
The "muslim countries" may be influential, but they're not the entire world. GP is spot on. Before the Bushes, some countries hated the US. Now all of them do, including your old friends.
Sure, that happens. And then next time country (x) invades country (y), country (y) will be all wanting us to help again, and complaining we didn't come in quickly enough. It happens every 50 years or so, seems to be overdue by a decade or two. And we'll go in, save some ungrateful country's ass yet again, so they can spit on us. (shrug). I'd also like to know where you get this "all" from - seems like one of those statements which is a generalization with few facts to back it up. Point remains, blaming Bush for the Iraq war ignores the fact that most of the Democrats in congress also voted to authorize the use of force, and are now suffering an apparently crippling loss of memory in that regard, pretending they didn't. If you're gonna blame Bush, you better blame all those Democrats too...many of whom were talking about the need to stop SH _long_ before (this) Bush was in office.
But, perception is reality, right? So if people who don't get all the facts, and choose to blame only Bush for the actions of the entire legislative _and_ executive branch, well, they can hate the entire country out of ignorance, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. But, if someone hates you because they don't get the facts, does it matter?
Some people have at least a moderate tendency to think and type in letter groups associated with sounds, which can lead to inadvertent errors which would be improbable in association with pure finger-slips (as opposed to invocation of muscle memory for similar-sounding but differently spelled phrases). I think it is reasonable to characterize these inadvertent errors as "typos" I've heard these described as "brainos", which I think is a more accurate description. But whatever.
so long as the generated text does not reflect the thought process of the author while said text was being written. (Unusual keyboard layouts are also not necessarily as unusual as you might think -- though the "m" and the "e" are still a good distance away from each other even on Dvorak, there nonetheless are far more layouts than QWERTY in common use). But again, this is the use of one word where the other meant something entirely different. And as I said, IF the reason for saying one when we were talking about the other is that they didn't know enough about the issue to know it's an entirely different chemical, THEN any advice they had to share on the issue would be of limited use at best. IF the reason for the error was to try to intentionally obfuscate the matter at hand, THEN even more reason the answer is suspect. However, if it was simply a briano, then the rest of my post becomes the central point, which is "So what if we're subsitizing? Good - we should be subsidizing it, even more." Or words to that effect.
From my perspective as an uninvolved 3rd party, you're the ass in this thread. (shrug) OK, fine, point is, guy wasn't clear on what he was talking about, I asked a clarifying question AND made the point that the thing he was most likely arguing against is, seems to me, a good thing. So I addressed both his error and his presumed point. I didn't make a federal case over the methanol/ethanol "typo", I pointed it out and went on with the subtopic as if he meant ethanol (which he did). Thanks for your input but, sorry, did you want to talk about subsidizing biofuels grown in this country vs paying money for dino-fuels to countries who hate us?
"Far as I'm concerned, better we subsidize biofuels from US sources, than give money to countries who hate us"
Right now and until your current president steps down, it means just about every country. I can separate a really bad presidency from a so-so people I happen to like, but most people around the globe can't, won't or are politically manipulated not to do so. If you think that until Bush was in office, the muslim countries didn't hate us, then your lack of history knowledge is astonishing. Also, senators on both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq (yes I can provide links, so can you with google). Blaming other countries hating us on Bush for the war, or on Bush in general, is inaccurate and oversimplifying the situation.
On the bright side, things are likely to improve. As lousy as a next presidency can be, it can't possibly be worse than the current one (or I will be sadly disappointed on you, people). As about half mankind grew up watching the current one, anything seems destined to look better. Right. "Do something! Anything!" in other words. Sorry, but getting the wrong idiot in there could easily be worse than what we have now. Fred Thompson is probably the best candidate, and he's not even running (yet - if ever). The crop of idiots who are running, on either side of the aisle, there's not a one who interests me at this point.
A sensible reply to my first comment would have been, "didn't you mean ethanol?" Instead you chose to be an ass and read a whole lot more into my remark than was there. How is calling you on a factual error "reading...more into (your) remark"? You either made a mistake or don't understand what you're talking about. Your followup posts indicate that you have nothing but noisy rhetoric to back up whatever your point is.
Next time bother to read the whole thread and pick up on the gist of what people are talking rather than jumping on a single error. The rest of us were talking about Ethanol. Now then, shall we talk about why subsidizing farmers is better than financing terrorists, or or did you just want to play the "stick my fingers in my ears and holler lalalalalalala I can't hear you" game.
I wonder why you do that? In any event, don't bother replying, I'm not interested in a flamefest. Goodbye. Right. Last word and all that, sure, feel free.
{sigh} you really must be new here. There's no need to be snide over a typo, and other than your pointless grammar-Nazism, you offered nothing of substance in your reply.
Sorry, but going from "ethanol" to "methanol" isn't likely to be a typo, it's either an intentional manipulation to introduce FUD, or an outright error, or an example of dramatic ignorance of the topic. Wasn't sure which was the case, hence my question.
Your inappropriateness aside, are you actually claiming that the Federal Government does not subsidize the conversion of corn into motor fuel? Huh. That's a remarkable degree of ignorance, And, that's a remarkable degree of "where the fark did you get that from what I wrote?".
given the nearly forty billion dollars that Congress has given in such subsidies in the past decade. Your taxpayer dollars at work. In any event, just so you won't think that I'm making this up Yeah, whatever. Far as I'm concerned, better we subsidize biofuels from US sources, than give money to countries who hate us, so, yeah thanks for the link and all that but I don't see it as a problem. In fact I think we should subsidize the infrastructure for same, so we can get this stuff into production and stop pretending we like the arabs.
You seem to have taken my question about "Methanol, who said anything about that, we're talking about Ethanol here" and expanded it into a series of assumptions, some amusing, and some outright wrong.
It's even worse than that, since methanol production is heavily subsidized by the Federal Government. Your reliability on this topic is, ahem, somewhat diminished let's say, by the fact that you seem to have confused "ethanol" and "methanol". Sometimes the better way to support your point, is to stay silent when you don't have a basic understanding of it.
I might even expand on that to say, that if you aren't clear on what you're arguing against, you just might now have done enough research to have made your decision on facts rather than emotions. Just sayin...
We do let people vote at age 18. An 18-year-old is unlikely to have been supporting himself for long, to have effective memories of both recessions and booms, to have a decent understanding of world politics, and so on. Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth, typically as encouraged by the usual large corporations. (the pop star says we should vote for...)
Yup, and that's why we have democrats in office. By the time you hit 30, you realize that the sky isn't pink, that everyone isn't nice, and that bad people really do exist, and if you use logic rather than emotion, you give up the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint.
So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.
Far as I'm concerned, if people are too damned lazy to vote, or can't figure out the ballot, they're too stupid/useless to have their opinion matter. Leave the important decisions to the grownups who can actually follow a line to a circle, and who are able to differentiate between useful members of society and leeches.
Seems to me, this list of miscreants accounts for about 80% of the spam my filters catch. Tell me again why I should give a shit that some viagra insurance spammer trying to steal my identity with some phishing scheme shouldn't be gone after?
Oh, and for the people who are going to say I'm promoting "I have nothing to hide therefore I don't care", NO, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, if someone in authority is going after the people who leech from tha intarwebs rather than contribute to same, I'm all for it.
What's a techie without his/her phone? It is not so inconvenient for apple, but it would be inconvenient for someone who starts to reply on that (or any) device and then has to go without it for a few days. Just you wait till your without your devices and have to go through withdrawal! If only they had some provision for a loaner phone. (sheesh). Don't people RTFA anymore before commenting on things which are clearly stated, with prices given?
Hint: If you want a loaner, pay 'em a bit for it and swap SIMM cards until you get yours back.
Think Sony battery defective ( hot and exploding ). They cannot easily replace the battery in these devices, so they would have to recall all the defective ones and issues new iPhones or someone is going to be doing a lot of soldering. Have techies become so non-techie that soldering is now considered intimidating? If the batteries get recalled, they'll crack open the case, replace the battery, and put on a new case. Just like they've been doing for years with iPod battery replacements if you have Apple do it. Nothing complicated, just inconvenient _if_ it happens. For them. Hardly my concern either way, is it?
It's called obsolescent built in. Apple, just like some other companies, want people to constantly replace their purchases with new super-duper models, and dump the old one in the trash. Even though the old one can be given a new lease of life for a second or third user on a budget. Apple and their locked hardware are the same as closed source vendors like MS. Funny, but when I google for "iPod battery" I get dozens of services who aren't apple who'll swap it out for me. Where's the forced obsolescence, or force no-third-party part again?
They did not make it easy to change the SIM card or the battery in this device.
Funny, I see the SIM card slot right on top of the iPhone, with a little hole that, presumably, I can push something pointy into and get the card to pop out. Looking at the dissection link you posted, I can see how that's not obvious, but seeing an iPhone in person it's pretty clear what the deal is.
If you're going to criticize flaws, it helps your point of view if you stick to actual ones. I'm not stressing the battery life, I can tolerate sending it in to Apple or whomever for a day or three to get a new one in a few years, if I've not moved on to a newer phone by then.
I'm not sure that "it makes it harder for criminals to get away with crime" is a compelling argument to me. Seems to me an equivalent of your argument is "I don't want to put a license plate on my car, because then someone can see who went to a given location". So again, how does this change the status quo? And, please compare and contrast this to the (real) benefit of emergency responders being able to find you when you dial 911 from your cellphone, but don't know where you are? You'd be surprised - I've been on an awful lot of wild goose chases looking for people who called in themselves or for someone else, with a bad location; it's a tremendous waste of time of a lot of people to play "find the accident", and Crom help you if you give up and they turn up dead somewhere the next day. "Well at least their privacy was fully intact..."
In my opinion, the biggest news here is not as how it was reported, but rather that people now can easily modify the default image and try booting it on the iPhone...
Hmmm... drop in an init script or two to kick off a terminal window? is there a terminal.app anywhere, or X11 hooks? I should download the image and play around a bit...
I think most cell phone users are aware of the fact that they can be tracked by their phone.
You're statement about cell towers is correct, but it's the 25 feet tracking that I'm concerned about. Most users actually don't know they are being tracked whenever they carry their phone. You know what? My travel pattern just isn't that interesting, and neither I suspect, is yours. Now, to the guy who is itching to reply saying "I have nothing to hide so I don't mind this" is my point, no, that's _not_ my point. What I'm saying, is that if you really think that just because something _can_ be done, it _is_ being done, well, you're just not that interesting. Sorry. Nobody cares if you went to the beer store on thursday instead of wednesday this week. Unless you're an active suspect that is specifically being watched, there's no reason to watch you. And, if you are an active suspect, you're being watched anyway. So this is a null problem.
This is kind of like getting all worked up that your employer keeps web proxy logs, and email logs, of what you do when they're paying you to be working. Yeah, they do. And nobody cares unless you're in trouble anyway.
amen,. the intertubes need one big "STFU" notice stapling somewhere... i mean really, its a world leader in dumb smartphones, can we please get back to news for nerds, rather than news from pr. If only there was some way to show what the contents of an article are without having to read it to find out if it's something you don't care about. Like maybe a headline and summary about it or something.
Almost all bullets have a 'jacket' which protects them from deforming during the discharge and focuses the explosion. It gets cast off almost immediately. OK, I just burned 5 mod points by responding to this, but, What the Hell are you talking about? Jacketed bullets don't "cast off" anything. The copper jacket is to keep it from deforming in the barrel and in flight, and to control expansion when it hits the target.
The only thing you could possibly mean is a "sabot", which is a usually plastic "shoe" type thing that is very occasionally used to protect the bullet from the rifling of the barrel, and that does fall off early in the flight of the bullet. But that's rarely used, and not by any means an "almost all" so, I think I have to back to "what the hell are you talking about".
Also 'harmlessly' does not mean 'without effect'. You can propel anything at 100 MPH and it's going to cause some damage....
Oh, I dunno, I get hit by photons at light speed all the time, and doesn't hurt a bit. Without knowing the energies involved, speculating about what is and isn't lethal is just speculative handwaving.
Apple will replace it under their service program, when the phone is out-of-warranty. $85.95 including postage.
http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/service/batter y/ Oh come on now, Gord, the bashers were displaying their ignorance for us, and you had to go and spoil the little show by injecting actual facts and everything. What were you thinking?
Another point, is that I've sent 2 iPods back to Apple for battery replacement, and both times they came back as (presumably) the same guts but a new battery, and case. So the cost (60 bucks as I recall) was in effect a refurb. Looked like a brand new unit coming back.
rendering properly in safari? ha! Apparently you missed my point. The "browser" installed on the Treo is iffy at best on sites like, well, fark, slashdot, cnn, or pretty much anywhere else I go.
I note your tagline - can you tell me, before I spend any time at all in answering your post, how much actual experience you have with Safari and/or Apple products in general? It's so hard to know if you're just spouting negativism out of ignorance, or if you have a specific example you'd like to address. It seems that often, people speaking negatively about things, particularly apple-related things, are doing so out of ignorance and preconceived notions rather than actual personal experience, I'm wondering if you have something specific in mind or if this is just another one of those times.
yup, I'm also getting an error when I try this on my Treo. It's the first-generation one, maybe that's the problem. It also reboots about half the time when I answer a call so maybe it's time to just throw it away and move up.
My Treo already does this. Got a link? Because mine doesn't. At least not yet.
I'm seriously torn if I'm gonna buy one of these. The guy in our office who buys every new toy will of course buy one on release day if he can, and I'm hoping to play with it. Still haven't decided if it's got enough to wedge me away from my (aging) Treo but - given the websites I can't view properly on the thing, if they render properly in safari, and I can stop carrying around multiple devices, I'll probably drop the money and buy one.
So is simply responding to one small section of an argument in an attempt to paint the entire arguement into your own strawmen. Which you've done twice now. Once to the parent and once to me when I pointed it out. Yes well, you said they hadn't made the point, I quoted where they had. Which means you missed it.
I said nothing about you being mentally defective, Riiiight. Because the 'you need to see a shrink' thing could mean so, so many things. Got it.
only that people who view the world in such a skewed manner as to believe that there are actually folk out there doing nothing but "badness" 100% of the time should consult a mental health professional to discuss the possiblity of them having a persecution complex. The world is seldom as black and white as you painted it. Pssst...you're doing it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not so sure. I've built a lot of webservers, I'm familiar and comfortable with apache. Sure I can buy a RJ-45 jack sized webserver that runs thhtpd or whatever, it's just no t that impressive to use that webserver as a proof of concept. But, by using Apache, you not only get the added functionality that that brings, but you also demonstrate that this isn't a crippled webserver implementation, it's a full fledged Unix box that arbitrary app (n) will run on.
The only shiny part on the back of the iPhone is an Apple-logo-sized, er, apple logo. The rest of it is matte finished. That said, my iPod didn't stay mirror-like very long.
That and I'm a geek, why would I want to look in a mirror? I checked this morning, I'm more or less within tolerance.
The thing is, to the consumer, price at the pump is what they are going to decide on. Hidden subsidy costs are just that, hidden. Do you count the cost of military activities in oil-rich countries in the cost? Maybe, but you don't see that cost at the pump. Or maybe we do. But at the end of the day, if I can get to work for 5 bucks a day instead of 6, I'll go with the apparently cheaper solution.
The choice is not between oil and ethanol, but between oil and nuclear. We have to cope with the fact that our domestic and global energy needs aren't going down, they're going up dramatically. So far, nuclear is the only system we've developed to which provides energy efficiency comparable to fossil fuels. Maybe in the distant future we will have more efficient solar systems and there is always hot fusion. But RIGHT NOW, nuclear seems the way to go.
Absolutely. I think it's criminal that the US hasn't built a new nuke plant in decades. It amazes me that people who pretend to be environmentalists buy into, and sometimes help spread the FUD around nuclear power. NO, Chernobyl can't happen here, for at least the following several solid reasons (insert reasons here), but, they start quoting that and 30 year old movies and the non-event of Three Mile Island for why we shouldn't be using more nuke power. It's really disheartening to see someone who claims to be an environmentalist, but who fights against the obvious solution to the problem.
That said, it won't help me today with my existing car, or any car I'm likely to buy in the forseeable future. Until plugins are ready for a 100 mile per day round trip, they won't do me any good. But, once they are, I'll be all over it.
Someone, maybe you, mentioned that biofuels are really for legacy support. That's a good way to put it. Today's cars and distribution networks/systems are set up for liquid delivery. Here's a progression that to me, makes sense:
1. (today) Mostly dino-fuels, small amount of bio
2. Increase biofuels using same infrastructure, distributions, and vehicles.
3. Add hydrogen (if viable) vehicles and fueling stations to existing
infrastructures. This allows people to drive to the same businesses which are currently selling them gas/diesel, this just adds a third option. But, it can come from existing power systems (using carbon-based fuels), or:
4. Nuclear-based generation of Hydrogen for vehicles, providing a fuel source and emissions free of carbon.
Each of these steps is an incremental change from where we are today. Social inertia being what it is, jumping from step 1 all the way to step 4 is too much for the masses to understand/accept/adopt. But I think step 4, in some form, is where we want to end up. Let's do it in such a way that we don't break the existing modes, or diverge too far from them all at once.
The "muslim countries" may be influential, but they're not the entire world. GP is spot on. Before the Bushes, some countries hated the US. Now all of them do, including your old friends.
Sure, that happens. And then next time country (x) invades country (y), country (y) will be all wanting us to help again, and complaining we didn't come in quickly enough. It happens every 50 years or so, seems to be overdue by a decade or two. And we'll go in, save some ungrateful country's ass yet again, so they can spit on us. (shrug). I'd also like to know where you get this "all" from - seems like one of those statements which is a generalization with few facts to back it up. Point remains, blaming Bush for the Iraq war ignores the fact that most of the Democrats in congress also voted to authorize the use of force, and are now suffering an apparently crippling loss of memory in that regard, pretending they didn't. If you're gonna blame Bush, you better blame all those Democrats too...many of whom were talking about the need to stop SH _long_ before (this) Bush was in office.
But, perception is reality, right? So if people who don't get all the facts, and choose to blame only Bush for the actions of the entire legislative _and_ executive branch, well, they can hate the entire country out of ignorance, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. But, if someone hates you because they don't get the facts, does it matter?
so long as the generated text does not reflect the thought process of the author while said text was being written. (Unusual keyboard layouts are also not necessarily as unusual as you might think -- though the "m" and the "e" are still a good distance away from each other even on Dvorak, there nonetheless are far more layouts than QWERTY in common use).
But again, this is the use of one word where the other meant something entirely different. And as I said, IF the reason for saying one when we were talking about the other is that they didn't know enough about the issue to know it's an entirely different chemical, THEN any advice they had to share on the issue would be of limited use at best. IF the reason for the error was to try to intentionally obfuscate the matter at hand, THEN even more reason the answer is suspect. However, if it was simply a briano, then the rest of my post becomes the central point, which is "So what if we're subsitizing? Good - we should be subsidizing it, even more." Or words to that effect.
From my perspective as an uninvolved 3rd party, you're the ass in this thread.
(shrug) OK, fine, point is, guy wasn't clear on what he was talking about, I asked a clarifying question AND made the point that the thing he was most likely arguing against is, seems to me, a good thing. So I addressed both his error and his presumed point. I didn't make a federal case over the methanol/ethanol "typo", I pointed it out and went on with the subtopic as if he meant ethanol (which he did). Thanks for your input but, sorry, did you want to talk about subsidizing biofuels grown in this country vs paying money for dino-fuels to countries who hate us?
Right now and until your current president steps down, it means just about every country. I can separate a really bad presidency from a so-so people I happen to like, but most people around the globe can't, won't or are politically manipulated not to do so.
If you think that until Bush was in office, the muslim countries didn't hate us, then your lack of history knowledge is astonishing. Also, senators on both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq (yes I can provide links, so can you with google). Blaming other countries hating us on Bush for the war, or on Bush in general, is inaccurate and oversimplifying the situation.
On the bright side, things are likely to improve. As lousy as a next presidency can be, it can't possibly be worse than the current one (or I will be sadly disappointed on you, people). As about half mankind grew up watching the current one, anything seems destined to look better.
Right. "Do something! Anything!" in other words. Sorry, but getting the wrong idiot in there could easily be worse than what we have now. Fred Thompson is probably the best candidate, and he's not even running (yet - if ever). The crop of idiots who are running, on either side of the aisle, there's not a one who interests me at this point.
A sensible reply to my first comment would have been, "didn't you mean ethanol?" Instead you chose to be an ass and read a whole lot more into my remark than was there. How is calling you on a factual error "reading...more into (your) remark"? You either made a mistake or don't understand what you're talking about. Your followup posts indicate that you have nothing but noisy rhetoric to back up whatever your point is.
Next time bother to read the whole thread and pick up on the gist of what people are talking rather than jumping on a single error. The rest of us were talking about Ethanol. Now then, shall we talk about why subsidizing farmers is better than financing terrorists, or or did you just want to play the "stick my fingers in my ears and holler lalalalalalala I can't hear you" game.
I wonder why you do that? In any event, don't bother replying, I'm not interested in a flamefest. Goodbye. Right. Last word and all that, sure, feel free.
Sorry, but going from "ethanol" to "methanol" isn't likely to be a typo, it's either an intentional manipulation to introduce FUD, or an outright error, or an example of dramatic ignorance of the topic. Wasn't sure which was the case, hence my question.
Your inappropriateness aside, are you actually claiming that the Federal Government does not subsidize the conversion of corn into motor fuel? Huh. That's a remarkable degree of ignorance,
And, that's a remarkable degree of "where the fark did you get that from what I wrote?".
given the nearly forty billion dollars that Congress has given in such subsidies in the past decade. Your taxpayer dollars at work. In any event, just so you won't think that I'm making this up
Yeah, whatever. Far as I'm concerned, better we subsidize biofuels from US sources, than give money to countries who hate us, so, yeah thanks for the link and all that but I don't see it as a problem. In fact I think we should subsidize the infrastructure for same, so we can get this stuff into production and stop pretending we like the arabs.
You seem to have taken my question about "Methanol, who said anything about that, we're talking about Ethanol here" and expanded it into a series of assumptions, some amusing, and some outright wrong.
I wonder why you do that.
I might even expand on that to say, that if you aren't clear on what you're arguing against, you just might now have done enough research to have made your decision on facts rather than emotions. Just sayin...
Yup, and that's why we have democrats in office. By the time you hit 30, you realize that the sky isn't pink, that everyone isn't nice, and that bad people really do exist, and if you use logic rather than emotion, you give up the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint.
So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.
Far as I'm concerned, if people are too damned lazy to vote, or can't figure out the ballot, they're too stupid/useless to have their opinion matter. Leave the important decisions to the grownups who can actually follow a line to a circle, and who are able to differentiate between useful members of society and leeches.
Seems to me, this list of miscreants accounts for about 80% of the spam my filters catch. Tell me again why I should give a shit that some viagra insurance spammer trying to steal my identity with some phishing scheme shouldn't be gone after?
Oh, and for the people who are going to say I'm promoting "I have nothing to hide therefore I don't care", NO, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, if someone in authority is going after the people who leech from tha intarwebs rather than contribute to same, I'm all for it.
If only they had some provision for a loaner phone. (sheesh). Don't people RTFA anymore before commenting on things which are clearly stated, with prices given? Hint: If you want a loaner, pay 'em a bit for it and swap SIMM cards until you get yours back.
Funny, but when I google for "iPod battery" I get dozens of services who aren't apple who'll swap it out for me. Where's the forced obsolescence, or force no-third-party part again?
They did not make it easy to change the SIM card or the battery in this device.
Funny, I see the SIM card slot right on top of the iPhone, with a little hole that, presumably, I can push something pointy into and get the card to pop out. Looking at the dissection link you posted, I can see how that's not obvious, but seeing an iPhone in person it's pretty clear what the deal is.If you're going to criticize flaws, it helps your point of view if you stick to actual ones. I'm not stressing the battery life, I can tolerate sending it in to Apple or whomever for a day or three to get a new one in a few years, if I've not moved on to a newer phone by then.
I'm not sure that "it makes it harder for criminals to get away with crime" is a compelling argument to me. Seems to me an equivalent of your argument is "I don't want to put a license plate on my car, because then someone can see who went to a given location". So again, how does this change the status quo? And, please compare and contrast this to the (real) benefit of emergency responders being able to find you when you dial 911 from your cellphone, but don't know where you are? You'd be surprised - I've been on an awful lot of wild goose chases looking for people who called in themselves or for someone else, with a bad location; it's a tremendous waste of time of a lot of people to play "find the accident", and Crom help you if you give up and they turn up dead somewhere the next day. "Well at least their privacy was fully intact..."
Hmmm... drop in an init script or two to kick off a terminal window? is there a terminal.app anywhere, or X11 hooks? I should download the image and play around a bit...
You're statement about cell towers is correct, but it's the 25 feet tracking that I'm concerned about. Most users actually don't know they are being tracked whenever they carry their phone.
You know what? My travel pattern just isn't that interesting, and neither I suspect, is yours. Now, to the guy who is itching to reply saying "I have nothing to hide so I don't mind this" is my point, no, that's _not_ my point. What I'm saying, is that if you really think that just because something _can_ be done, it _is_ being done, well, you're just not that interesting. Sorry. Nobody cares if you went to the beer store on thursday instead of wednesday this week. Unless you're an active suspect that is specifically being watched, there's no reason to watch you. And, if you are an active suspect, you're being watched anyway. So this is a null problem.
This is kind of like getting all worked up that your employer keeps web proxy logs, and email logs, of what you do when they're paying you to be working. Yeah, they do. And nobody cares unless you're in trouble anyway.
If only...
OK, I just burned 5 mod points by responding to this, but, What the Hell are you talking about? Jacketed bullets don't "cast off" anything. The copper jacket is to keep it from deforming in the barrel and in flight, and to control expansion when it hits the target.
The only thing you could possibly mean is a "sabot", which is a usually plastic "shoe" type thing that is very occasionally used to protect the bullet from the rifling of the barrel, and that does fall off early in the flight of the bullet. But that's rarely used, and not by any means an "almost all" so, I think I have to back to "what the hell are you talking about".
Also 'harmlessly' does not mean 'without effect'. You can propel anything at 100 MPH and it's going to cause some damage....
Oh, I dunno, I get hit by photons at light speed all the time, and doesn't hurt a bit. Without knowing the energies involved, speculating about what is and isn't lethal is just speculative handwaving.
http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/service/batte
Another point, is that I've sent 2 iPods back to Apple for battery replacement, and both times they came back as (presumably) the same guts but a new battery, and case. So the cost (60 bucks as I recall) was in effect a refurb. Looked like a brand new unit coming back.
I note your tagline - can you tell me, before I spend any time at all in answering your post, how much actual experience you have with Safari and/or Apple products in general? It's so hard to know if you're just spouting negativism out of ignorance, or if you have a specific example you'd like to address. It seems that often, people speaking negatively about things, particularly apple-related things, are doing so out of ignorance and preconceived notions rather than actual personal experience, I'm wondering if you have something specific in mind or if this is just another one of those times.
yup, I'm also getting an error when I try this on my Treo. It's the first-generation one, maybe that's the problem. It also reboots about half the time when I answer a call so maybe it's time to just throw it away and move up.
Yes well, you said they hadn't made the point, I quoted where they had. Which means you missed it.
I said nothing about you being mentally defective, Riiiight. Because the 'you need to see a shrink' thing could mean so, so many things. Got it. only that people who view the world in such a skewed manner as to believe that there are actually folk out there doing nothing but "badness" 100% of the time should consult a mental health professional to discuss the possiblity of them having a persecution complex. The world is seldom as black and white as you painted it. Pssst...you're doing it again.