I can't answer all your questions, and it seems no one else has either.
However you already know that APs cooperate when on the same channel, so the best thing you can do is get your neighbours to change to non-overlapping channels. I have done this by visiting my neighbours, explaining the problem and helping them to change channel. Result: reliable connection. You might prefer to get the concierge to advertise good wifi practice.
If you end up configuring all your neighbours then you get a chance to distribute signals intelligently: ie, reserve two channels for big downloaders, and the other reserved to ordinary users (even a single channel is more than enough for 20 people browsing the web).
Non-standard wifi and N: generally speaking it is best for these devices to be configured for g or b and disable the fancy feature which stomps on signals and acts like interference. They will do better not just you. Disable anything out of the ordinary.
Prior to the 1920s heart disease as we know it now was almost unknown. Find a graph of its rise and it begins in the early 20th century, peaking in the 50s.
As President Rossevelt's doctor is quoted as saying, words to the effect of "A physician could expect to see one or two cases in a whole career."
..and in 50 years its not animal fat that has had a causal link demonstrated, but vegetable oils and hydrogenated byproducts (margarine etc).
Terry Pratchett being made a knight is another example of the leftie Labour party, currently in power, manipulating the british honours system in order to undermine its purpose. In no way does Terry Pratchett merit being knighted.
The carriers have to make money: texts are used to subsidise other services. If they aren't allowed to charge such a high fee then voice goes up. There are plenty in the UK who barely use voice, so the carriers must find ways of making money from them.
Unless one accepts a general principle against subsidy (which infact I personally do as it obscures, causes distortions and also bubbles) then this isn't an issue. For government to interfere, which is effectively what this article logically ends at, would be absurd since governments are subsidy addicts.
A market is simply a place of exchange which would happen between any two farmers or hunters where one has something the other does not. It's more natural than pie.
And more common than tyranny.
Feelings, religion? Consider that you might be presuming upon a Vulcan.
In anycase "it's just a philosophy" is an illogical response. Marxism could be called 'just a philosophy', but equally with Stallman's position it causes human misery and removes human satisfactions by contradicting your nature.
I merely point this matters out for your information, since I am not affected by them in anyway, so that you may live long and prosper.
Stallman's philosophy, of which Perens is a supper and not just a fan, is anti-business. The failure for commercial reasons of his enterprise is fitting and just.
The irony of modern education is that creative subjects, like Art, give the kids the satisfaction of actually making something even though the results are of no practical use to anyone, while practical subjects, like physics, are not taught in a manner that has much if any practical application.
An utter waste.
What makes learning compelling is practical production, actual concrete results, even better: ones that make money. Learning for the sake of learning is pointless, and for some a torture.
I reckon creativity is the handmaiden of practicality: practicality comes first. Find that kid a real purpose to use their maths, and then make it creative.
They post off topic stuff on the more popular groups rather than taking the time to hunt down the proper one.
That's usually down to over-enthusiastic splitting of groups. There is so little traffic in the resulting groups that we are forced to look for popular related groups. It also results in even more work for the spam filterers - who used to be human (are they still?). I saw this happen to Borland's moderated groups: they became markedly less useful. Shortly after I gave up and moved to Ruby.
Meat and saturated fat were linked to heart disease which is now considered non-causative: contributory only. Only highly processed meats are still linked to cancers. Red meat is linked to male infertility but only because of beef hormone usage.
Salmonella infects 1 in 20,000 eggs, and generally only if the shell is cracked. For years it was supposed to cause heart disease, onyl for the WHO to establish that the more you eat the longer you live.
Margarine was supposed to be heart healthy and turned out to be the opposite.
Same with vegetable oils, but which cause cancer in lab animals (triggering an attempt to industrially convert polyunsaturates to monounsaturated oils).
I reckon there are two general rules: when is doubt do the opposite of what the experts tell you, and the second to establish what is anthropologically natural to us rather than chasing novel elixirs. After all, you can't be moderate or balanced with poisons (like margarine, a sort of plasticised oil).
Fruit is really not so healthy as people have been lead to believe. It is mostly water, sugar, vit C and (some) antioxidants.
Vit C, the original reason for pushing fruit, has proven to be all hype; you only need a small amount to get all the benefit. Except in marathon runners it doesn't help colds.
Sugar is bad news: feeds bacterias and fructose uses up the bodies store of magnesium (which is bad, bad, bad). Modern fruits are large and super-sweet, nothing like what our hunter-gatherer ancestors consumed, and were also generally restricted by season. Eat a crab apple or an ornamental Chinese citrus fruit to see what natural fruit is really like. 12,000 years ago figs were almost 1/6 the size. 3 million years of hunter evolution has yet to catch up with our modern industrial diet of sugar, grains, vegetables oils and marge.
And the jury is out on antioxidants as studies are contradictory.
Bananas offer potassium, but there are healthier ways to get that.
Keep to the semi-sweet fruits, such as cranberries, grapefruit, strawberries, blueberries etc
"Why were the prequels so uneven when the originals were so good?"
Margarine! Brain matter is fat, on the whole. The body does what is can with what it is given. Margarine has fats not found in nature, so you can imagine that margarine eaters are not entirely rational. All those synapses popping and fizzing randomly: it makes a nice light show, but don't ask what it all means.
I blame margarine for atheism, after all atheists are by definition irrational. And that would explain Lucas's silly reduction of jedi powers down to the level of tiny critters. You really have to be a margarine-head to be that ridiculous.
[In case you are wondering about that atheism thing, the dictionary definition of Atheism is "One who denies the gods/God" and was coined a few hundred years ago. It has never been defined as "Lack of belief", despite the sense of the greek. In other words: one who believes there is no God. But for belief, rather than merely an opinion, one requires proof, and as any agnostic knows: no one has proven the non-existence of God (and it is probably impossible anyway). By his own admission Dawkins, for example, is really a form of anti-religious agnostic rather than a genuine atheist since he acknowledges the "tiny possibility that God exists". However many modern agnostics of Dawkin's ilk prefer to call themselves atheist and are insisting that atheist can also be defined as "one who has no belief" even though it clearly crosses in to agnostic territory. After all, those definitions pivot around 'belief' and that is binary: you either do or you don't, there are no degrees of belief. 'Opinion' serves for that. Agnostic is the null case.]
So you are trusting people who won't/can't keep their own solemnly made word (or who lie in the most serious of circumstances): which makes you irrational. Even a chicken is more rational than that.
There isn't much point in continuing to converse with you, so : over and out.
I said loud and clear that separation isn't necessarily being unfaithful (while divorce certainly is). So no one is talking about two people being forced to live together despite problems.
As for divorce: they have given their vow in all sincerity, and so are bound by their own integrity, not by society. If they renege on their solemn promise of faithful love then no one will ever truly trust them again, and they will never again be deeply happy because deep happiness comes only, and strictly only, from intimate love and for that trust is a prerequisite (as also is the marriage vow).
Divorce and adultery are primary reasons for modern unhappiness. They destroy everything worth having.
That isn't marriage. Marriage means unconditional love till death. And a genuine marriage doesn't allow for either party to "leave" whatever the happens: even rape and murder.
You can have approximations of marriage/love if you like, but they are just shadows of the painful/blessed reality.
It's really not that excellent: if one party breaks the vows it doesn't give license to the other to do the same back: then both have lost their integrity. Repaying a bad turn with a bad turn. However there is a big difference between leaving a relationship (defacto divorce) and separation. The vows aren't broken by separation from an abusive spouse. The abusive spouse may even benefit by it, as well as the abused. And in time come back together (hopefully).
If however the abused party thinks that divorce is justified then they probably didn't believe in all that "till do death do us part, come what may" shit anyway, and didn't say the vows sincerely, in which case there was no marriage and they should really be seeking an annulment.
Really divorce is a contradiction. Either you believe in marriage in which case divorce makes no sense, only annulment, or you don't believe in marriage in which case divorce is not necessary. People used to understand this: it's only when the liberals came charging in with their brains composed mainly of margarine that the law has become irrational on this subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent. Thanks for that.
If TKIP really broken or is this yet another weak-password story.
I can't answer all your questions, and it seems no one else has either.
However you already know that APs cooperate when on the same channel, so the best thing you can do is get your neighbours to change to non-overlapping channels. I have done this by visiting my neighbours, explaining the problem and helping them to change channel. Result: reliable connection. You might prefer to get the concierge to advertise good wifi practice.
If you end up configuring all your neighbours then you get a chance to distribute signals intelligently: ie, reserve two channels for big downloaders, and the other reserved to ordinary users (even a single channel is more than enough for 20 people browsing the web).
Non-standard wifi and N: generally speaking it is best for these devices to be configured for g or b and disable the fancy feature which stomps on signals and acts like interference. They will do better not just you. Disable anything out of the ordinary.
As President Rossevelt's doctor is quoted as saying, words to the effect of "A physician could expect to see one or two cases in a whole career."
Genetics is just another red-herring.
People using well-documented, flexible frameworks are suckers.
Terry Pratchett being made a knight is another example of the leftie Labour party, currently in power, manipulating the british honours system in order to undermine its purpose. In no way does Terry Pratchett merit being knighted.
The carriers have to make money: texts are used to subsidise other services. If they aren't allowed to charge such a high fee then voice goes up. There are plenty in the UK who barely use voice, so the carriers must find ways of making money from them.
Unless one accepts a general principle against subsidy (which infact I personally do as it obscures, causes distortions and also bubbles) then this isn't an issue. For government to interfere, which is effectively what this article logically ends at, would be absurd since governments are subsidy addicts.
A market is simply a place of exchange which would happen between any two farmers or hunters where one has something the other does not. It's more natural than pie. And more common than tyranny.
Doubtless you are right, which is why I am a libertarian and reckon the market is the natural way.
In anycase "it's just a philosophy" is an illogical response. Marxism could be called 'just a philosophy', but equally with Stallman's position it causes human misery and removes human satisfactions by contradicting your nature.
I merely point this matters out for your information, since I am not affected by them in anyway, so that you may live long and prosper.
Stallman's philosophy, of which Perens is a supper and not just a fan, is anti-business. The failure for commercial reasons of his enterprise is fitting and just.
Anyone who supports Stallman is supporting the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
The irony of modern education is that creative subjects, like Art, give the kids the satisfaction of actually making something even though the results are of no practical use to anyone, while practical subjects, like physics, are not taught in a manner that has much if any practical application.
An utter waste.
What makes learning compelling is practical production, actual concrete results, even better: ones that make money. Learning for the sake of learning is pointless, and for some a torture.
I reckon creativity is the handmaiden of practicality: practicality comes first. Find that kid a real purpose to use their maths, and then make it creative.
That's usually down to over-enthusiastic splitting of groups. There is so little traffic in the resulting groups that we are forced to look for popular related groups. It also results in even more work for the spam filterers - who used to be human (are they still?). I saw this happen to Borland's moderated groups: they became markedly less useful. Shortly after I gave up and moved to Ruby.
And why is the parent flamebait? Must have been a fruit nazi.
Meat and saturated fat were linked to heart disease which is now considered non-causative: contributory only. Only highly processed meats are still linked to cancers. Red meat is linked to male infertility but only because of beef hormone usage.
Salmonella infects 1 in 20,000 eggs, and generally only if the shell is cracked. For years it was supposed to cause heart disease, onyl for the WHO to establish that the more you eat the longer you live.
Margarine was supposed to be heart healthy and turned out to be the opposite.
Same with vegetable oils, but which cause cancer in lab animals (triggering an attempt to industrially convert polyunsaturates to monounsaturated oils).
I reckon there are two general rules: when is doubt do the opposite of what the experts tell you, and the second to establish what is anthropologically natural to us rather than chasing novel elixirs. After all, you can't be moderate or balanced with poisons (like margarine, a sort of plasticised oil).
Fruit is really not so healthy as people have been lead to believe. It is mostly water, sugar, vit C and (some) antioxidants.
Vit C, the original reason for pushing fruit, has proven to be all hype; you only need a small amount to get all the benefit. Except in marathon runners it doesn't help colds.
Sugar is bad news: feeds bacterias and fructose uses up the bodies store of magnesium (which is bad, bad, bad). Modern fruits are large and super-sweet, nothing like what our hunter-gatherer ancestors consumed, and were also generally restricted by season. Eat a crab apple or an ornamental Chinese citrus fruit to see what natural fruit is really like. 12,000 years ago figs were almost 1/6 the size. 3 million years of hunter evolution has yet to catch up with our modern industrial diet of sugar, grains, vegetables oils and marge.
And the jury is out on antioxidants as studies are contradictory.
Bananas offer potassium, but there are healthier ways to get that.
Keep to the semi-sweet fruits, such as cranberries, grapefruit, strawberries, blueberries etc
This law is the promotion of ignorance. And anti-evolution.
And how is that a troll?
The first part is for your amusement, and the usual religious debate in the second.
"Why were the prequels so uneven when the originals were so good?"
Margarine! Brain matter is fat, on the whole. The body does what is can with what it is given. Margarine has fats not found in nature, so you can imagine that margarine eaters are not entirely rational. All those synapses popping and fizzing randomly: it makes a nice light show, but don't ask what it all means.
I blame margarine for atheism, after all atheists are by definition irrational. And that would explain Lucas's silly reduction of jedi powers down to the level of tiny critters. You really have to be a margarine-head to be that ridiculous.
[In case you are wondering about that atheism thing, the dictionary definition of Atheism is "One who denies the gods/God" and was coined a few hundred years ago. It has never been defined as "Lack of belief", despite the sense of the greek. In other words: one who believes there is no God. But for belief, rather than merely an opinion, one requires proof, and as any agnostic knows: no one has proven the non-existence of God (and it is probably impossible anyway). By his own admission Dawkins, for example, is really a form of anti-religious agnostic rather than a genuine atheist since he acknowledges the "tiny possibility that God exists". However many modern agnostics of Dawkin's ilk prefer to call themselves atheist and are insisting that atheist can also be defined as "one who has no belief" even though it clearly crosses in to agnostic territory. After all, those definitions pivot around 'belief' and that is binary: you either do or you don't, there are no degrees of belief. 'Opinion' serves for that. Agnostic is the null case.]
Who said anything about believing that people don't lie? Er, I mean : cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck. Or something like that. Cocka-doodle-doo, bye!
So you are trusting people who won't/can't keep their own solemnly made word (or who lie in the most serious of circumstances): which makes you irrational. Even a chicken is more rational than that. There isn't much point in continuing to converse with you, so : over and out.
I said loud and clear that separation isn't necessarily being unfaithful (while divorce certainly is). So no one is talking about two people being forced to live together despite problems.
As for divorce: they have given their vow in all sincerity, and so are bound by their own integrity, not by society. If they renege on their solemn promise of faithful love then no one will ever truly trust them again, and they will never again be deeply happy because deep happiness comes only, and strictly only, from intimate love and for that trust is a prerequisite (as also is the marriage vow).
Divorce and adultery are primary reasons for modern unhappiness. They destroy everything worth having.
That isn't marriage. Marriage means unconditional love till death. And a genuine marriage doesn't allow for either party to "leave" whatever the happens: even rape and murder.
You can have approximations of marriage/love if you like, but they are just shadows of the painful/blessed reality.
Marriage is real life.
It's really not that excellent: if one party breaks the vows it doesn't give license to the other to do the same back: then both have lost their integrity. Repaying a bad turn with a bad turn. However there is a big difference between leaving a relationship (defacto divorce) and separation. The vows aren't broken by separation from an abusive spouse. The abusive spouse may even benefit by it, as well as the abused. And in time come back together (hopefully).
If however the abused party thinks that divorce is justified then they probably didn't believe in all that "till do death do us part, come what may" shit anyway, and didn't say the vows sincerely, in which case there was no marriage and they should really be seeking an annulment.
Really divorce is a contradiction. Either you believe in marriage in which case divorce makes no sense, only annulment, or you don't believe in marriage in which case divorce is not necessary. People used to understand this: it's only when the liberals came charging in with their brains composed mainly of margarine that the law has become irrational on this subject.