In addition to the color, the designers wisely chose to equip the laptop with only a small flash drive, in order to deter theft by adults and teenagers who have no use for a computer that can't store a decent collection of porn.
Umm, it's a novel. That what a novel is, made-up events. If they bear some resemblance to real events, the burden is on anyone else to cite a newspaper or some other non-fictional source to show this.
For instance, you don't have to give people evidence that the Eugenics Wars from Star Trek never happened, or that Skynet didn't kill everybody. They're made-up events and if you held that they happened in real life I'd ask you to prove it.
I'm not sure I buy that. F1 drivers seem to go into their mid-30s (Michael Schumacer was Champion at 35) and fighter pilots must go at least that, so reflexes and coordination can stay good for that long. I'm not as sure about intellect and I'm not that old myself. It's an interesting question and I'd like to read some solid information.
I had a bit of a problem with the ammo and health supplies in Silent Hill. There are a lot of the items, if you look around. When you start you don't know how much you will need in the end, so I just stocked up as much as I could instead of just playing the game. I'd search around for it, and restart if I used what I though was too much. You need some ammo for all the bosses, but not nearly all of it, and most of the bosses are very easy. You just alternate running around with shooting when you get far enough away, or when the boss pauses its attack. Only the final boss requires a lot of health and ammo in the first game, and in the second the final boss is easy and doesn't take much health.
You have to have some limits on ammunition, but the long-term accumulation of huge supplies detracts from the game as you don't know what you'll face in the long term. You either have to be really stingy and not play the damn thing, or you risk showing up at the end without enough supplies to finish the game.
That's perfectly sensible. There used to be x-ray machines at shoe stores back before the dangers were known. They pretty much let people play with the things. That's not a dumb law at all.
First of all, an artist can rent out their work if they want. The shouldn't expect for people to pay as if they're buying something, though.
Second, buying used art doesn't cheat the employer. If there is a used market for the goods, people will more readily buy them, or pay more, since they may recoup some of the costs later on, or even make money in a few cases.
Houses are sold and most houses last longer than a paperback book or a record. Collectibles last indefinitely until they're worn or decayed into nothing. You would have us not be able to sell those things, and you would have the masterpieces of the great artists buried in the graves of the first buyers. Overall it is an enormous waste to be destroying any item that isn't used up fast enough for you.
Copying and redistributing an artist's work against their wishes is wrong. Keeping it or selling it if you've only arranged to reny it for a time is wrong. Selling a work that you've bought isn't. The artist got his royalty already, someone gains the work and you lose it.
Where do you live? I've never heard of such a thing. Round these parts of the USA grocery stores ask for a phone number. I give them the number of the local weather line, and my name is given as I. P. Freihlie.
Shopper's food doesn't have cards and they still have better prices anyway.
I really wish people would stop using this "FUD" neologism so much. If something's not true say "that's not true" or call it a "lie" or "error". Not "stop spreading FUD." The issue is whether something is true, not whether it spreads fear, uncertainty, or doubt.
They can't do that. It would probably invalidate the EPA ratings, and result in more warranty claims. Otherwise the manufacturer would have tuned them for more power in the first place.
Your argument is called the "broken-window fallacy" and it's very old and basic.
Okay. Spending money on something does not simply help the economy, because the money would have been spent on something else otherwise, or invested. Rasing taxes and spending a trillion dollars on digging a big hole and filling it back up would "pour billions into industry" but would not be a good thing. In the same way, a broken window does not "help the economy" by providing work for window-makers.
So you don't see how slowing emissions could slow the economy. First, in the context of global warming, slowing emissions basically means burning less stuff and thus emitting less carbon. It's not about clean burning or anything like that. To reduce that you either have to use a different form of energy, realistically nuclear energy, or use less energy. Switching to nuclear energy really might be a good idea, but otherwise we have to use less.
To use less energy, we can simply give things up that use energy, thus by definition slowing the economy. We'd be simply choosing to be poorer in one way or another. The other way to use less energy is to use more efficient processes. Energy costs money, so there is already a lot of research into efficiency. For the most part, money will be invested into such research where the energy savings, and thus reduced emissions, are likely to be worth the investment, without any intervention.
More energy could be saved with further research in efficient technology, but that either means raising energy taxes to goad people to use less, or mandating people use less energy than is ideal economically, or what have you. All of which slow down the economy.
If global warming is really a problem it might be necessary to reduce carbon output, but it will slow the economy.
So was that indeed the final verdict on the Nano screens? When I search for info on it all I get are stories from last year.
I have a cellphone I carry around in my pocket and it doesn't scratch. I got my Nano for Xmas and I still don't know if it's safe for me to remove this "skin" that makes it feel cheap and tacky.
I think you misunderstand what a chimera is. A chimera is a being that contains cells with different genomes. For instance, a geep is a hodgepodge of goat cells and sheep cells.
A chimeric person would have cells with a different set of genes, not foreign genes that are in all the cells. I don't see it happening because it's way freakier than simply inserting a foreign gene.
I would like to buy this if it's significantly better than the PS2 and if the legacy games are convenient. I have a bunch of NES and SNES games lying around, and I'd love to play them again, but I don't want to end up paying hundreds to buy all my old titles again. Is there any word on how much this feature will cost? If it's too much than it might be easier to just pull get old stuff on Ebay if my consoles or games don't work anymore. Also, I'd want to own the games and not just have a subscription.
It would be really neat if you could get a free game or big discount if you own an old (possibly busted) cartridge and you turn it in, or show it to a salesman or something.
Also for old time's sake it might be nice to pull out some old controllers. I'd like to see a cheap adapter for the old ones. The basic NES or SNES controller isn't that special and should be surpassed by modern controllers, but the NES Advantage, the Power Glove, Light Gun and others are different. It'd be nice to use those instead of having to buy various new controllers, especially since there's nothing else like the Power Glove that I'm aware of.
As an aside, damn I feel old. My toys aren't supposed to be ancient history.
No, that doesn't tell you how much of the power is turned into heat and how much is turned into sound, and it doesn't tell you how much of the sound makes it to the eardrums.
One acoustic milliwatt from an in-ear monitor would be vastly louder than one acoustic milliwatt from a pair of full-size open headphones.
What worries me about all these upgrades is that the might slow things down and eat up more memory. I use a G4 Emac 1Ghz and I hope to at least get 18-24 more months of good use if I add a little RAM, but I worry if all these updates will make my computer obsolete sooner. They sell the computers and the software, so it seems like they might have an interest in forcing me to upgrade.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about wiretaps and encryption, but perhaps the moral of your situation is "how about just not driving drunk."
In addition to the color, the designers wisely chose to equip the laptop with only a small flash drive, in order to deter theft by adults and teenagers who have no use for a computer that can't store a decent collection of porn.
Umm, it's a novel. That what a novel is, made-up events. If they bear some resemblance to real events, the burden is on anyone else to cite a newspaper or some other non-fictional source to show this.
For instance, you don't have to give people evidence that the Eugenics Wars from Star Trek never happened, or that Skynet didn't kill everybody. They're made-up events and if you held that they happened in real life I'd ask you to prove it.
I'm not sure I buy that. F1 drivers seem to go into their mid-30s (Michael Schumacer was Champion at 35) and fighter pilots must go at least that, so reflexes and coordination can stay good for that long. I'm not as sure about intellect and I'm not that old myself. It's an interesting question and I'd like to read some solid information.
I had a bit of a problem with the ammo and health supplies in Silent Hill. There are a lot of the items, if you look around. When you start you don't know how much you will need in the end, so I just stocked up as much as I could instead of just playing the game. I'd search around for it, and restart if I used what I though was too much. You need some ammo for all the bosses, but not nearly all of it, and most of the bosses are very easy. You just alternate running around with shooting when you get far enough away, or when the boss pauses its attack. Only the final boss requires a lot of health and ammo in the first game, and in the second the final boss is easy and doesn't take much health.
You have to have some limits on ammunition, but the long-term accumulation of huge supplies detracts from the game as you don't know what you'll face in the long term. You either have to be really stingy and not play the damn thing, or you risk showing up at the end without enough supplies to finish the game.
First of all, an artist can rent out their work if they want. The shouldn't expect for people to pay as if they're buying something, though.
Second, buying used art doesn't cheat the employer. If there is a used market for the goods, people will more readily buy them, or pay more, since they may recoup some of the costs later on, or even make money in a few cases.
Houses are sold and most houses last longer than a paperback book or a record. Collectibles last indefinitely until they're worn or decayed into nothing. You would have us not be able to sell those things, and you would have the masterpieces of the great artists buried in the graves of the first buyers. Overall it is an enormous waste to be destroying any item that isn't used up fast enough for you.
Copying and redistributing an artist's work against their wishes is wrong. Keeping it or selling it if you've only arranged to reny it for a time is wrong. Selling a work that you've bought isn't. The artist got his royalty already, someone gains the work and you lose it.
It also can happen in people withdrawing from tranquilizers. Weeks in a row. Horrors.
Where do you live? I've never heard of such a thing. Round these parts of the USA grocery stores ask for a phone number. I give them the number of the local weather line, and my name is given as I. P. Freihlie.
Shopper's food doesn't have cards and they still have better prices anyway.
To me even the TNG DVDs look like actors on a set. Also, you can hear the plywood floors creaking under their feet. That sort of kills the illusion.
They can't do that. It would probably invalidate the EPA ratings, and result in more warranty claims. Otherwise the manufacturer would have tuned them for more power in the first place.
I can touch-type with one hand almost as well as with both hands. Don't ask how I developed that skill. I'm sure others can do it.
Some people would be happy to eat Jello that Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman just wrestled in. You wouldn't?
No, the first one was much better than yours.
Your argument is called the "broken-window fallacy" and it's very old and basic.
Okay. Spending money on something does not simply help the economy, because the money would have been spent on something else otherwise, or invested. Rasing taxes and spending a trillion dollars on digging a big hole and filling it back up would "pour billions into industry" but would not be a good thing. In the same way, a broken window does not "help the economy" by providing work for window-makers.
So you don't see how slowing emissions could slow the economy. First, in the context of global warming, slowing emissions basically means burning less stuff and thus emitting less carbon. It's not about clean burning or anything like that. To reduce that you either have to use a different form of energy, realistically nuclear energy, or use less energy. Switching to nuclear energy really might be a good idea, but otherwise we have to use less.
To use less energy, we can simply give things up that use energy, thus by definition slowing the economy. We'd be simply choosing to be poorer in one way or another. The other way to use less energy is to use more efficient processes. Energy costs money, so there is already a lot of research into efficiency. For the most part, money will be invested into such research where the energy savings, and thus reduced emissions, are likely to be worth the investment, without any intervention.
More energy could be saved with further research in efficient technology, but that either means raising energy taxes to goad people to use less, or mandating people use less energy than is ideal economically, or what have you. All of which slow down the economy.
If global warming is really a problem it might be necessary to reduce carbon output, but it will slow the economy.
I'm copying that, editing it and sending it myself. (Please don't sue me for this.) Let's all send something similar.
So was that indeed the final verdict on the Nano screens? When I search for info on it all I get are stories from last year.
I have a cellphone I carry around in my pocket and it doesn't scratch. I got my Nano for Xmas and I still don't know if it's safe for me to remove this "skin" that makes it feel cheap and tacky.
Does anybody have a cite?
I think you misunderstand what a chimera is. A chimera is a being that contains cells with different genomes. For instance, a geep is a hodgepodge of goat cells and sheep cells.
A chimeric person would have cells with a different set of genes, not foreign genes that are in all the cells. I don't see it happening because it's way freakier than simply inserting a foreign gene.
I would like to buy this if it's significantly better than the PS2 and if the legacy games are convenient. I have a bunch of NES and SNES games lying around, and I'd love to play them again, but I don't want to end up paying hundreds to buy all my old titles again. Is there any word on how much this feature will cost? If it's too much than it might be easier to just pull get old stuff on Ebay if my consoles or games don't work anymore. Also, I'd want to own the games and not just have a subscription.
It would be really neat if you could get a free game or big discount if you own an old (possibly busted) cartridge and you turn it in, or show it to a salesman or something.
Also for old time's sake it might be nice to pull out some old controllers. I'd like to see a cheap adapter for the old ones. The basic NES or SNES controller isn't that special and should be surpassed by modern controllers, but the NES Advantage, the Power Glove, Light Gun and others are different. It'd be nice to use those instead of having to buy various new controllers, especially since there's nothing else like the Power Glove that I'm aware of.
As an aside, damn I feel old. My toys aren't supposed to be ancient history.
No, that doesn't tell you how much of the power is turned into heat and how much is turned into sound, and it doesn't tell you how much of the sound makes it to the eardrums.
One acoustic milliwatt from an in-ear monitor would be vastly louder than one acoustic milliwatt from a pair of full-size open headphones.
I like my KX414. It's a basic tri-mode candybar phone with good reception. The interface is a very simple and self-explanatory menu system.
The phone is streamlined so it fits well in a pocket.
My previous 2325 was also good. Kyocera makes good phones for someone who just wants a phone.
>> movies that are larger than 320x240 and 6 seconds long? >To paraphrase Bill, six seconds should be enough for most men. Speak for yourself.
Do you still have to give your name and address out when you use one of those? Does anyone give those to people without regular CC's?
What worries me about all these upgrades is that the might slow things down and eat up more memory. I use a G4 Emac 1Ghz and I hope to at least get 18-24 more months of good use if I add a little RAM, but I worry if all these updates will make my computer obsolete sooner. They sell the computers and the software, so it seems like they might have an interest in forcing me to upgrade.