Right-click the drive from "Computer" and select "Properties." Click the "Hardware" tab. Warnings are reported there, or an "everything's okay" message if there are no warnings.
They sure seem to be, but perhaps, just perhaps, our understanding of everything involved in this isn't as complete as we believe it to be?
Perhaps, but so what? It clearly is not the more likely reality, and absent any kind of scientific rationale or unbiased empirical validation there is no logical reason to stop using perfectly useful technology under the belief that it is true.
I mean I probably think the guy is a kook, but can any of you really guarantee he is wrong?
Since such a condition is facially implausible, the burden of proof is on you to prove that he is not wrong, particularly because it would be a relatively simple matter to do so.
Personally, I'll start taking it seriously when at least one so-called sufferer can reliably report the appearance or disappearance of his symptoms in coordination with a randomly cycled emf source in a credible, double-blind experiment.
What do I mean by the word mean? What do I mean by the word word? What do I mean by what do I mean? What do I mean by do, and what do I do by mean? What do I do by do by do and what do I do by wasting your time like this? Goodnight.
Radiation does not work that way! It is not "contagious." If some asshat disperses small (man-portable) amounts radioactive materials into the environment, the simple and logical thing to do is clean them up.
So does a nuclear plant produce less nuclear waste than a coal plant? Nice try, but no.
High-level waste, no, of course not, since coal plants do not produce any high level waste. But coal fly-ash is low-level radioactive, and coal plants produce a metric assload of it. And high-level waste is not the unsolvable dilemma people make it out to be. For one, it can be reduced in radioactivity and quantity by further reprocessing and fissioning it. Second, it is amazingly low in volume - consider that all the output from the entire operational lifetime of all inefficient old reactors is still able to be locally sited! With careful planning, it could continue to be so indefinitely, or at least until it could be further fissioned.
However, simply putting your fingers in your ears and plowing ahead with the nuclear agenda will only put the problem of waste on the shoulders of the next 300+ generations.
Simply putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that we don't need large amounts of reliable, clean electricity is no solution either. There's apparently no magical energy source with no difficult problems and no unwanted effects around the corner, so we have to go with the best we have.
I think the security threats are exaggerated. Highly radioactive materials are mostly dangerous to whomever possesses them, and even the highest-level reactor fuel or plutonium products cannot be turned into bomb fuel without multi-billion dollar enrichment facilities. The biggest threat is probably low-level radiation leaking into ground water supplies, but if our society reaches the point where people don't care or don't know about that hazard, we probably aren't living long enough for that to be a big concern anyways.
The new interface is basically Mouse-only, unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003. In 2003, when I hit ALT+D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget. With 2007, it's "Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence."
Can you elaborate? In my Office 2007, pressing "ALT" displays the keyboard commands, which change as you use them.
"tearing down usable homes and entire neighborhoods seems like very short-term thinking to me."
It sounds like it, but it isn't. None of these cities are experiencing short-term stagnation because economic conditions. They are dying, plain and simple. Housing and rebound and demand for housing will come back - in *other places*. Not in these cities. The demolished neighborhoods are not going to be replaced with *anything* - at least not any time soon.
These cities are emptying because people don't want to live there. You're not going to change their minds with a few tax breaks. It is too bad, and a waste, that what could have been nice historical housing is no longer wanted. But it can't be saved. We must accept that. Years from now these cities may grow again, but those residents will want fresh, modern housing, not decrepit piles that have been empty for decades.
1. The huge manufacturing sectors that provided the kinds of low-wage, low-skill jobs that immigrant populations used to gobble up, have actually relocated to the former immigrants' home countries.
2. We would have to be willing to legally allow people to work low-wage, low-skill, dirty, dangerous jobs, and we don't really seem willing to do that.
This is understandably a touchy subject for a lot of people. It's hard to overstate the sense of loss; more than that, the sense of historical obliteration. Neighborhoods where once happy, prosperous people lived productive lives are vacant, and one cannot help but feel that those happy, prosperous people are gone, perhaps never to return, and those empty houses stand like tombstones marking the death of their dreams.
Of course, this is thankfully not really true - those happy and productive people simply moved to other places, where they continue to live out their happy, productive lives. We feel bad about razing these homes because we feel like we are razing the lives of the people that used to occupy them. But those people left those homes behind long ago. They've moved on - so should the rest of us.
We feel sick about obliterating what should be valuable assets. This is a hard problem too. laborers built these structures, many of them good strong structures, some of them the likes of which will not be seen again. With care, they should be able to last centuries. But a society too obsessed with preserving the past - particularly a past that is not valued - is a moribund society. We should not carelessly annihilate our history. But at the same time we need to remember who we, historically, are:
We are a dynamic society. We are a dynamic people. The only constant is change. These cities shrank while other cities grew. It is in many ways a reflection on the freedom of our society, that people and businesses decided to leave and go elsewhere. Other places gained while these places lost. Now it's time for the principle of creative destruction to come into play. It's time to give up on what people have freely decided they don't value. It's time to re-allocate resources from failure to profit. It's time to clear the landscape of the ruins of yesterday, to make room for the possibilities of the future.
The ideas in this article are on the right track. We can't get sentimental about a past that is gone, never to return. Raze the unowned buildings, now sheltering criminals and vagrants. Hell, de-annex the empty land and return it to the township. Sell whatever mobile capital goods are underutilized. Wipe the ordinance book clean and start over again. Put every budget item and every tax on the chopping block. Clear the path for future opportunity, or it will never arrive.
Only if the car was skidding across the surface. Since we're dealing with wheels that are turning, we want the road to have high friction for maximum efficiency (that friction is, after all, what the engine is pushing against to make the car go forward). The relevant rolling friction losses, where you want it to be lower, are in the wheel bearings and other rotating mechanicals of the car - which are obviously not affected by the surface you drive over.
Once there is a 100% all-you-can-eat streaming music service for a fixed fee (i'm hoping last.fm will create this) i'll be the first to ditch my music collection...
That is incorrect. You can have character only styles, or character and paragraph combined styles that apply the paragraph settings only if you haven't selected a block of text.
Or are you telling me that if I want 4/5 I have to type 4/5, and if I want \frac{4}{5} I have to type alt+= 4/5?
If you want to type "4/5" you just type it like normal. Pressing the ALT and = keys just activates the equation entry mode. While in that mode, you enter fractions in the form (something)/(something else). I really don't see how this is more horrible than "\frac{4}{5}". In fact, it's fewer keystrokes.
It's as simple as this: I want to type what I mean, and I want what I see on the screen to reflect what I mean. I don't want to type something ambiguous and then press something to clarify to some package what I actually mean. I don't want to see (instead) the resultant output of what I mean.
You're contradicting yourself! You type "\frac{4}{5}" and expect NOT to see what you just typed on the screen, right? Obviously any time you are working with symbols and markup that there is no keyboard key for, there has to be some translation. But honestly, Word is actually very good at this. Type in, e.g., (x^2+y^2)/z^2 and you'll get exactly what you would expect. They even went out of their way to make many LaTeX commands just work.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you check the SMART info on windows?
Right-click the drive from "Computer" and select "Properties." Click the "Hardware" tab. Warnings are reported there, or an "everything's okay" message if there are no warnings.
They sure seem to be, but perhaps, just perhaps, our understanding of everything involved in this isn't as complete as we believe it to be?
Perhaps, but so what? It clearly is not the more likely reality, and absent any kind of scientific rationale or unbiased empirical validation there is no logical reason to stop using perfectly useful technology under the belief that it is true.
I mean I probably think the guy is a kook, but can any of you really guarantee he is wrong?
Since such a condition is facially implausible, the burden of proof is on you to prove that he is not wrong, particularly because it would be a relatively simple matter to do so.
Personally, I'll start taking it seriously when at least one so-called sufferer can reliably report the appearance or disappearance of his symptoms in coordination with a randomly cycled emf source in a credible, double-blind experiment.
What do I mean by the word mean? What do I mean by the word word? What do I mean by what do I mean? What do I mean by do, and what do I do by mean? What do I do by do by do and what do I do by wasting your time like this? Goodnight.
Radiation does not work that way! It is not "contagious." If some asshat disperses small (man-portable) amounts radioactive materials into the environment, the simple and logical thing to do is clean them up.
So does a nuclear plant produce less nuclear waste than a coal plant? Nice try, but no.
High-level waste, no, of course not, since coal plants do not produce any high level waste. But coal fly-ash is low-level radioactive, and coal plants produce a metric assload of it. And high-level waste is not the unsolvable dilemma people make it out to be. For one, it can be reduced in radioactivity and quantity by further reprocessing and fissioning it. Second, it is amazingly low in volume - consider that all the output from the entire operational lifetime of all inefficient old reactors is still able to be locally sited! With careful planning, it could continue to be so indefinitely, or at least until it could be further fissioned.
However, simply putting your fingers in your ears and plowing ahead with the nuclear agenda will only put the problem of waste on the shoulders of the next 300+ generations.
Simply putting your fingers in your ears and pretending that we don't need large amounts of reliable, clean electricity is no solution either. There's apparently no magical energy source with no difficult problems and no unwanted effects around the corner, so we have to go with the best we have.
I think the security threats are exaggerated. Highly radioactive materials are mostly dangerous to whomever possesses them, and even the highest-level reactor fuel or plutonium products cannot be turned into bomb fuel without multi-billion dollar enrichment facilities. The biggest threat is probably low-level radiation leaking into ground water supplies, but if our society reaches the point where people don't care or don't know about that hazard, we probably aren't living long enough for that to be a big concern anyways.
The new interface is basically Mouse-only, unless you happen to remember the shortcuts from 2003. In 2003, when I hit ALT+D I have options and I can see all of the things I can do with data in case I forget. With 2007, it's "Continue typing the Office 2003 menu key sequence."
Can you elaborate? In my Office 2007, pressing "ALT" displays the keyboard commands, which change as you use them.
Why the "Republicans" tag? This keeps happening. Is there some kind of tagging conspiracy going on?
"If you are going to do this, do it in areas that are uninhabitable and which would cost too much to rehabilitate,"
Have you been to Detroit lately? Or East St. Louis?
"tearing down usable homes and entire neighborhoods seems like very short-term thinking to me."
It sounds like it, but it isn't. None of these cities are experiencing short-term stagnation because economic conditions. They are dying, plain and simple. Housing and rebound and demand for housing will come back - in *other places*. Not in these cities. The demolished neighborhoods are not going to be replaced with *anything* - at least not any time soon.
These cities are emptying because people don't want to live there. You're not going to change their minds with a few tax breaks. It is too bad, and a waste, that what could have been nice historical housing is no longer wanted. But it can't be saved. We must accept that. Years from now these cities may grow again, but those residents will want fresh, modern housing, not decrepit piles that have been empty for decades.
There are two problems with your idea:
1. The huge manufacturing sectors that provided the kinds of low-wage, low-skill jobs that immigrant populations used to gobble up, have actually relocated to the former immigrants' home countries.
2. We would have to be willing to legally allow people to work low-wage, low-skill, dirty, dangerous jobs, and we don't really seem willing to do that.
This is understandably a touchy subject for a lot of people. It's hard to overstate the sense of loss; more than that, the sense of historical obliteration. Neighborhoods where once happy, prosperous people lived productive lives are vacant, and one cannot help but feel that those happy, prosperous people are gone, perhaps never to return, and those empty houses stand like tombstones marking the death of their dreams.
Of course, this is thankfully not really true - those happy and productive people simply moved to other places, where they continue to live out their happy, productive lives. We feel bad about razing these homes because we feel like we are razing the lives of the people that used to occupy them. But those people left those homes behind long ago. They've moved on - so should the rest of us.
We feel sick about obliterating what should be valuable assets. This is a hard problem too. laborers built these structures, many of them good strong structures, some of them the likes of which will not be seen again. With care, they should be able to last centuries. But a society too obsessed with preserving the past - particularly a past that is not valued - is a moribund society. We should not carelessly annihilate our history. But at the same time we need to remember who we, historically, are:
We are a dynamic society. We are a dynamic people. The only constant is change. These cities shrank while other cities grew. It is in many ways a reflection on the freedom of our society, that people and businesses decided to leave and go elsewhere. Other places gained while these places lost. Now it's time for the principle of creative destruction to come into play. It's time to give up on what people have freely decided they don't value. It's time to re-allocate resources from failure to profit. It's time to clear the landscape of the ruins of yesterday, to make room for the possibilities of the future.
The ideas in this article are on the right track. We can't get sentimental about a past that is gone, never to return. Raze the unowned buildings, now sheltering criminals and vagrants. Hell, de-annex the empty land and return it to the township. Sell whatever mobile capital goods are underutilized. Wipe the ordinance book clean and start over again. Put every budget item and every tax on the chopping block. Clear the path for future opportunity, or it will never arrive.
Good point. If only we had some kind of modern, technologically advanced machine capable of converting horizontal forces into vertical ones!
Only if the car was skidding across the surface. Since we're dealing with wheels that are turning, we want the road to have high friction for maximum efficiency (that friction is, after all, what the engine is pushing against to make the car go forward). The relevant rolling friction losses, where you want it to be lower, are in the wheel bearings and other rotating mechanicals of the car - which are obviously not affected by the surface you drive over.
Me too, and I was actually more interested in that. Does anybody know if welding has been attempted in zero-g to date?
Once there is a 100% all-you-can-eat streaming music service for a fixed fee (i'm hoping last.fm will create this) i'll be the first to ditch my music collection...
Don't those exist already, e.g. Rhapsody?
It's not a basement, it's a command center!
You do, maybe. But for those that learn PowerShell, it's sweet.
Such a catalyst would violate entropy.
You do know that airplanes are not hermetically sealed, right? That they constantly pressurize outside air and circulate it into the cabin?
That depends on where you live, I guess. In the U.S. it almost always is a legal excuse, under the legal doctrine of necessity
That is incorrect. You can have character only styles, or character and paragraph combined styles that apply the paragraph settings only if you haven't selected a block of text.
Or are you telling me that if I want 4/5 I have to type 4/5, and if I want \frac{4}{5} I have to type alt+= 4/5?
If you want to type "4/5" you just type it like normal. Pressing the ALT and = keys just activates the equation entry mode. While in that mode, you enter fractions in the form (something)/(something else). I really don't see how this is more horrible than "\frac{4}{5}". In fact, it's fewer keystrokes.
It's as simple as this: I want to type what I mean, and I want what I see on the screen to reflect what I mean. I don't want to type something ambiguous and then press something to clarify to some package what I actually mean. I don't want to see (instead) the resultant output of what I mean.
You're contradicting yourself! You type "\frac{4}{5}" and expect NOT to see what you just typed on the screen, right? Obviously any time you are working with symbols and markup that there is no keyboard key for, there has to be some translation. But honestly, Word is actually very good at this. Type in, e.g., (x^2+y^2)/z^2 and you'll get exactly what you would expect. They even went out of their way to make many LaTeX commands just work.
Take a look for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUrVUhcWLnQ