Is it really so hard to talk and drive at the same time? I've never talked over a cellphone while I drove, but I've never noticed that I take a dangerous amount of attention off of the road while talking to someone else in the vehicle.
I still use Windows 2000 frequently, and that is the most annoying problem with Windows. I used to rename the Administrator user (why not have some extra obscurity), and run Windows with a user who only has "user" rights. But you need Admin rights to do pretty much everything in Windows, so now I just use a relatively secure Windows 2000 where I run as administrator (hey, I can always reinstall).
My windows architecture knowledge isn't great, but the messager service is not the same as windows messaging. If I click on my application's window, the OS will send it the WM_CLICK message. Messages are used for events in windows. The particular exploit is to do with textboxes and related messages.
Assuming it is legal to record television to VCR for personal use (while that does sound right, I'm not willing to sift through Canadian legal code right now), it would be illegal and immoral to share intellectual property with people who aren't given any rights to the material.
So if you share video casettes of a program with someone, and they could have legally recorded the program themselves (because they rent cable access), it would be fine.
But if you share video casettes with someone who doesn't have the rights to the material, then that would be wrong.
It makes sense that the same would go for P2P. The fact that nobody can really tell who has rights to what says nothing for the method of transfer.
It's also a B# + a semitone, and a D flat (or D minus a semitone). And from my composition class I should know of the other couple ways to describe it.
Somebody (The miltary?) did tests with fighter pilots, and the max rate seemed to be 1/200th of a second for maybe the image of a black plane on a blue sky. Hope that helps if you really decide to find a study. I searched the "Academic Search Elite" database but couldn't find anything.
I would agree that there probably is little reason to go higher than 60 fps. I've limited half-life to that and I don't think I could tell when it was increased later.
You can probably see 120 FPS pretty easily, though you might not conciously notice a difference. To test that you would need to have an image flashed at you at 1/120th of a second.
I was flipping through my dad's Windows 2000 book once and noticed that it is possible to run ls under windows. You need to turn on some component, and I don't know about the speed, but it's there (probably not linux ls, a version that came on a cd with the book...).
I can't get UT2K3 to work under linux. Something about my ATI drivers (which aren't developed by ATI apparantly) not supporting the Savage texture something. The irony is that I bought UT2K3 after I just switched to linux so I'd have a game to play. I heard that UT2K3 had a native client so I bought it. Back to Windows...
Now I've accepted that I'll be running Windows 2000 forever. Linux, though, is on my pentium which serves as a router and security learning platform.
It's the same for me, except I use Windows 2k. It's the smoothest, fastest running OS that just works for me, by virtue that I've been using Windows since 3.11.
And the burden of proof was on whoever thought of it. You're right there is a lot of edidence to suggest it, which is why it's one of the better ideas about the creation of the universe.
People who bring things that are new up need to prove it first, not ask others to disprove it. I agree that nobody will change their mind, but that's how it should be.
I would think that the burden of proof falls on those who bring it up in the first place. If THEY can't prove it, then there isn't anything to talk about, which leaves them in quite the predicament if it is untestable.
Slashdot Mirror
Law definition: A false representation of a matter of fact which is intended to deceive another.
I'm no lawyer, but it's certainly plausible that lying about credit cards would be fraud if done for any purpose.
Is it really so hard to talk and drive at the same time? I've never talked over a cellphone while I drove, but I've never noticed that I take a dangerous amount of attention off of the road while talking to someone else in the vehicle.
But is the Canadian public more knowledgable about it (war in general, Canada's exploits, and consequences)?
Street Fighter 3: Third Strike!
One of the alarm companies who advertises on the radio around where I live says they use radio, and not a land-line.
I still use Windows 2000 frequently, and that is the most annoying problem with Windows. I used to rename the Administrator user (why not have some extra obscurity), and run Windows with a user who only has "user" rights. But you need Admin rights to do pretty much everything in Windows, so now I just use a relatively secure Windows 2000 where I run as administrator (hey, I can always reinstall).
My windows architecture knowledge isn't great, but the messager service is not the same as windows messaging. If I click on my application's window, the OS will send it the WM_CLICK message. Messages are used for events in windows. The particular exploit is to do with textboxes and related messages.
Assuming it is legal to record television to VCR for personal use (while that does sound right, I'm not willing to sift through Canadian legal code right now), it would be illegal and immoral to share intellectual property with people who aren't given any rights to the material.
So if you share video casettes of a program with someone, and they could have legally recorded the program themselves (because they rent cable access), it would be fine.
But if you share video casettes with someone who doesn't have the rights to the material, then that would be wrong.
It makes sense that the same would go for P2P. The fact that nobody can really tell who has rights to what says nothing for the method of transfer.
It's a good thing that languages borrow from each other.
It's also a B# + a semitone, and a D flat (or D minus a semitone). And from my composition class I should know of the other couple ways to describe it.
Isn't recording them on VCR illegal anyway... in which case, there is no difference!
I second that.
Somebody (The miltary?) did tests with fighter pilots, and the max rate seemed to be 1/200th of a second for maybe the image of a black plane on a blue sky. Hope that helps if you really decide to find a study. I searched the "Academic Search Elite" database but couldn't find anything.
I would agree that there probably is little reason to go higher than 60 fps. I've limited half-life to that and I don't think I could tell when it was increased later.
Calculators are much nicer to use than PDAs, so if you need to do a lot of calculations, the PDA is not the way to go.
You can probably see 120 FPS pretty easily, though you might not conciously notice a difference. To test that you would need to have an image flashed at you at 1/120th of a second.
I was flipping through my dad's Windows 2000 book once and noticed that it is possible to run ls under windows. You need to turn on some component, and I don't know about the speed, but it's there (probably not linux ls, a version that came on a cd with the book...).
I can't get UT2K3 to work under linux. Something about my ATI drivers (which aren't developed by ATI apparantly) not supporting the Savage texture something. The irony is that I bought UT2K3 after I just switched to linux so I'd have a game to play. I heard that UT2K3 had a native client so I bought it. Back to Windows...
Now I've accepted that I'll be running Windows 2000 forever. Linux, though, is on my pentium which serves as a router and security learning platform.
Price. But it depends on the specific piece of software. The price might just be worth it.
It's the same for me, except I use Windows 2k. It's the smoothest, fastest running OS that just works for me, by virtue that I've been using Windows since 3.11.
The G in Gnome is not silent, iirc.
What's the difference between free and GPL?
Well, maybe Kommon Desktop Environment, after CDE.
And the burden of proof was on whoever thought of it. You're right there is a lot of edidence to suggest it, which is why it's one of the better ideas about the creation of the universe.
People who bring things that are new up need to prove it first, not ask others to disprove it. I agree that nobody will change their mind, but that's how it should be.
I would think that the burden of proof falls on those who bring it up in the first place. If THEY can't prove it, then there isn't anything to talk about, which leaves them in quite the predicament if it is untestable.