You must have missed how the article mentions: "combines the Linux operating system". Now you don't have to figure out which distro is the best - IBM already knows.
Put it as my secondary Hard drive. Unless that is your only drive, I would tend to not put such a big hard drive as my main. Then the entire OS wouldn't slow down at once.
The comments on that page are pretty harsh. I've never had a problem with Seagate and would still put it with WD as my favorites, but I am curious as to what is causing this, more cache needed?
Wireless is foremost a technology of convenience rather than security.
My wireless is actually more secure than my wired. I encrypt all of my wireless packets, use 802.1x with WPA2 AES, and my users have to authenticate. If you are wired, none of the above are true - in my case here.
Because it was written 200 years ago by a small elite of white male landowners with no input from the actual majority of the population, and it is keeping the US stuck at a low standard of living while so many other developed countries have moved ahead.
I'm sort of assuming sarcasm there. If not - then the color of their skin or their social rank doesn't take anything away from the content of the document. Also, that document formed a country that quickly grew from nothing to having perhaps the highest standard of living - if we no longer have that standard, then perhaps it is because of how far we have steered from the Constitution?
I feel that the best part about the Constitution is that those 'elite' landowners knew their own flaws, or at least that they must exist. They may have truly believed that they were the smartest/best group to run the country, but they saw the fault in that logic. There should never be such a group. That is how they wrote the Constitution, which is why the default rights are the peoples rights, not the other way around.
I wish every president would focus more on decreasing the debt. I think in business 101 you learn that it is better to spend less than you make - too bad the government doesn't have to run like a business.
I will say though that I'm not too impressed by Clinton. He came into office at a very good time, and one could argue that Reagan and Bush set that up. There are two charts that I feel need to be considered; the first being the government revenue and the second being the tax increases . Notice how Clinton was in office when the revenue was the highest it has been (20.9% of GDP) and was also during the highest tax increases. He took more money from a good economy, simple math, the government made more money.
Notice though, that the government revenue peaks at around 20% of GDP when our taxes are increased the most, but strangely enough it doesn't stay at 20% the year after, even if taxes are the same or more. I'm not sure why this happens, but I would guess either our economy gets weaker - putting more people in lower tax brackets; or people fine ways to hide or move the money. Perhaps a combination of both. Now, tell me, does it help our economy if we hide our money or ship it overseas?
How does the government get more money now? Tax more or print money, no? This is why you can't really look at W Bush on the chart to see his tax increases. The gov found a better way, print money, win-win.
Clinton also wanted 95% of America in homes, well he did it, now all those people are losing their homes. I don't know enough to back that up with much, just learning politics.
Is it too much to ask for a President that doesn't need to increase taxes and can find ways to spend less than they make? I'd be happy with that, all issues aside, for a start. Clinton had his good sides, but he took too much of my money.
Would a soldier fire upon his own family because he was given orders?
Just because the government has bigger bombs doesn't mean they win. I suppose if their goal was to kill everyone and everything, then perhaps, but even then there is someone that has to press that button, no?
Good points you make, but I wouldn't say that is the same thing as the two-tier internet. Those are individual business and personal decisions.
Those communities don't change the internet in anyway for the rest of us. If I choose to not have internet at all, am I then creating another 'gated' community?
No, it means, there could be, provided that it wouldn't be such a rare chance, that fossils comes into existence. Living things, that die the usual way, are decomposed within mere decades.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Ok, so there could be - check - but it is hard for us to find because most decompose fast; therefore almost impossible to find any at all. I guess I'm still not sure why there aren't a tremendous amount more species and variations of species. If elephants are evolving- which they must, right - and it will take thousands of years for them to evolve, then how come there are so few types currently? Is the elephant done evolving? Or does the elephant fail Darwinism if we decide to kill them all?
I don't want more of this Republican crap. The republicans now are as liberal as the democrats were 20 years ago. Each side has helped grow the government. It is just that Obama may have started his political run in the house of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. He then went into a corrupt city, and left it corrupt, by backing people such as Todd Stroger. National Journal ranked him #1 most left Senator, with Biden as #3, and Hillary #16 - scary. Obama has also said that he is for the Fair Act, which is just wrong.
I mustn't be the only one scared of Obama, seeing that he's a celebrity, he beat out Hillary, and Bush left the door open as much as possible for an automatic democratic win; he should be winning this thing by a landslide. Why is he not? JFK would be up 4-1.
what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.
I know very little about evolution. I believe I understand the big concepts, but here is my question:
If evolution explains where all species came from, then shouldn't a snapshot from any time period that the earth has existed show evolution in virtually all species? What I mean is shouldn't there be a monkey that is much closer to being human at all times? Shouldn't there be tons of different squirrels, and rats, and elephants. What is evolving into an elephant? I understand these things happen over an incredibly long amount of time, but doesn't that make it even more impossible to find a period without millions of species in between other species. If a giraffe turned into an Elephant (no idea what did) then wouldn't there have to be tons of types of giraffe's that were starting to look more like an elephant at all times? Wouldn't these at least be the case for the 'leading' species?
The biggest thing that would be wrong with Obama is his Capital Gain Tax. We are in a tough economic time, and Obama is going to hurt the companies that have stuck through it, kept our jobs, kept our money safe, and created wealth. His Patriot Employer Act is another handicap US companies will have in a world market.
Obama will and can create millions of jobs (i.e. his Energy-team thing), but the problem is he has to take our money 'before' he can create those jobs. Then all he is doing is shifting money from one hand to another. Then, if his team fails (which many times government plans do), oh well, we lose out on those jobs and our money.
Obama may make things 'feel' better, and may actually be better when/if he gets in office; however we will be much closer to socialism and our economy will have a harder time climbing out of the hole. Oh, and for flaws of Obama - His Reverend and how about William Ayers? Notice Obama talks about he American Promise, not the American Dream; because he promises to take from those that have dreamed big.
I've never taken a class in politics, never run for an office, didn't even know much about taxes 5 years ago; how come your post seems so obvious - yet candidate after candidate I haven't heard anything that smart come out of any of their mouths. (minus one - of course). Can it not be simplified like this? Do either of the candidates 'really' care as much as we do?
Does it really matter? Do younger gymnasts have a significant advantage over gymnasts a couple of years older?
It isn't just if they have an advantage or not. If they weren't using these 14-year-olds, then who would be on the team? They wouldn't be able to use their best gymnasts, and they wouldn't be a gold medal contender.
The US gymnasts proved they were far better anyway. One fall on the balance beam - vs. - one fall and 3 balance checks per girl != US not catching up for gold. I think the individual awards proved just that.
I really would like to see somebody make the leap and extend that argument to defend downloading movies. Anyone care to make the leap?
I don't think we are talking much of a leap here. I know lots of people that go to the movies every weekend; I don't think I know anyone that buys a CD per week anymore (or a concert for that matter).
The two students at Georgia Tech that hacked the campus Blackboard swipe system (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/15/student_hackers_we_didnt_defeat/).The general idea was that it didn't matter how secure the encryption-system was, if the physical system was easy to get to. You don't have to figure out what information is being sent to the machine, all they had to do was 'capture' a 'yes-there-is-enough-money-on-the-card' response, then duplicate. Hey free snacks!!
You know what would rock, an infinite gift card to Wendy's.
Music is an Art. Photography is an art. There are people that spend a lifetime perfecting taking photos. Name 10 famous photographers.
My point is, why should musicians be so protected. If I don't feel that your picture is worth one of my dollars, then I don't buy your picture. If I don't feel that your song is worth a dollar, then I don't buy your song, but I may pirate it. If I do want to buy a song, then I want most of the money going to the artist, if not all.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have missed how the article mentions: "combines the Linux operating system". Now you don't have to figure out which distro is the best - IBM already knows.
And you post anonymously so that we don't see that slashdot ID # in the millions
Put it as my secondary Hard drive. Unless that is your only drive, I would tend to not put such a big hard drive as my main. Then the entire OS wouldn't slow down at once.
The comments on that page are pretty harsh. I've never had a problem with Seagate and would still put it with WD as my favorites, but I am curious as to what is causing this, more cache needed?
I was actually talking about the wireless setup at work, not my home. Many buildings, many jacks in many rooms.
Wireless is foremost a technology of convenience rather than security.
My wireless is actually more secure than my wired. I encrypt all of my wireless packets, use 802.1x with WPA2 AES, and my users have to authenticate. If you are wired, none of the above are true - in my case here.
Because it was written 200 years ago by a small elite of white male landowners with no input from the actual majority of the population, and it is keeping the US stuck at a low standard of living while so many other developed countries have moved ahead.
I'm sort of assuming sarcasm there. If not - then the color of their skin or their social rank doesn't take anything away from the content of the document. Also, that document formed a country that quickly grew from nothing to having perhaps the highest standard of living - if we no longer have that standard, then perhaps it is because of how far we have steered from the Constitution?
I feel that the best part about the Constitution is that those 'elite' landowners knew their own flaws, or at least that they must exist. They may have truly believed that they were the smartest/best group to run the country, but they saw the fault in that logic. There should never be such a group. That is how they wrote the Constitution, which is why the default rights are the peoples rights, not the other way around.
I wish every president would focus more on decreasing the debt. I think in business 101 you learn that it is better to spend less than you make - too bad the government doesn't have to run like a business.
I will say though that I'm not too impressed by Clinton. He came into office at a very good time, and one could argue that Reagan and Bush set that up. There are two charts that I feel need to be considered; the first being the government revenue and the second being the tax increases . Notice how Clinton was in office when the revenue was the highest it has been (20.9% of GDP) and was also during the highest tax increases. He took more money from a good economy, simple math, the government made more money.
Notice though, that the government revenue peaks at around 20% of GDP when our taxes are increased the most, but strangely enough it doesn't stay at 20% the year after, even if taxes are the same or more. I'm not sure why this happens, but I would guess either our economy gets weaker - putting more people in lower tax brackets; or people fine ways to hide or move the money. Perhaps a combination of both. Now, tell me, does it help our economy if we hide our money or ship it overseas?
How does the government get more money now? Tax more or print money, no? This is why you can't really look at W Bush on the chart to see his tax increases. The gov found a better way, print money, win-win.
Clinton also wanted 95% of America in homes, well he did it, now all those people are losing their homes. I don't know enough to back that up with much, just learning politics.
Is it too much to ask for a President that doesn't need to increase taxes and can find ways to spend less than they make? I'd be happy with that, all issues aside, for a start. Clinton had his good sides, but he took too much of my money.
Would a soldier fire upon his own family because he was given orders?
Just because the government has bigger bombs doesn't mean they win. I suppose if their goal was to kill everyone and everything, then perhaps, but even then there is someone that has to press that button, no?
I was hoping that a search for "ACORN Obama" would bring up no results, but even back then there are 9 results.
"ACORN Barack Obama" now shows 424,000
Good points you make, but I wouldn't say that is the same thing as the two-tier internet. Those are individual business and personal decisions.
Those communities don't change the internet in anyway for the rest of us. If I choose to not have internet at all, am I then creating another 'gated' community?
I've never had 2 good points in a matter of 5 minutes.
No, it means, there could be, provided that it wouldn't be such a rare chance, that fossils comes into existence. Living things, that die the usual way, are decomposed within mere decades.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Ok, so there could be - check - but it is hard for us to find because most decompose fast; therefore almost impossible to find any at all. I guess I'm still not sure why there aren't a tremendous amount more species and variations of species. If elephants are evolving- which they must, right - and it will take thousands of years for them to evolve, then how come there are so few types currently? Is the elephant done evolving? Or does the elephant fail Darwinism if we decide to kill them all?
I don't want more of this Republican crap. The republicans now are as liberal as the democrats were 20 years ago. Each side has helped grow the government. It is just that Obama may have started his political run in the house of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. He then went into a corrupt city, and left it corrupt, by backing people such as Todd Stroger. National Journal ranked him #1 most left Senator, with Biden as #3, and Hillary #16 - scary. Obama has also said that he is for the Fair Act, which is just wrong.
I mustn't be the only one scared of Obama, seeing that he's a celebrity, he beat out Hillary, and Bush left the door open as much as possible for an automatic democratic win; he should be winning this thing by a landslide. Why is he not? JFK would be up 4-1.
what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.
I know very little about evolution. I believe I understand the big concepts, but here is my question:
If evolution explains where all species came from, then shouldn't a snapshot from any time period that the earth has existed show evolution in virtually all species? What I mean is shouldn't there be a monkey that is much closer to being human at all times? Shouldn't there be tons of different squirrels, and rats, and elephants. What is evolving into an elephant? I understand these things happen over an incredibly long amount of time, but doesn't that make it even more impossible to find a period without millions of species in between other species. If a giraffe turned into an Elephant (no idea what did) then wouldn't there have to be tons of types of giraffe's that were starting to look more like an elephant at all times? Wouldn't these at least be the case for the 'leading' species?
So what would be wrong with Obama?
The biggest thing that would be wrong with Obama is his Capital Gain Tax. We are in a tough economic time, and Obama is going to hurt the companies that have stuck through it, kept our jobs, kept our money safe, and created wealth. His Patriot Employer Act is another handicap US companies will have in a world market.
Obama will and can create millions of jobs (i.e. his Energy-team thing), but the problem is he has to take our money 'before' he can create those jobs. Then all he is doing is shifting money from one hand to another. Then, if his team fails (which many times government plans do), oh well, we lose out on those jobs and our money.
Obama may make things 'feel' better, and may actually be better when/if he gets in office; however we will be much closer to socialism and our economy will have a harder time climbing out of the hole. Oh, and for flaws of Obama - His Reverend and how about William Ayers? Notice Obama talks about he American Promise, not the American Dream; because he promises to take from those that have dreamed big.
The LHC won't be doing anything that isn't already happening in the upper atmosphere due to cosmic rays anyway.
This is true, but what if watching what is going on - changes what happens? Isn't this one of the mysteries of quantum physics?
A superhero or two coming out of this. I just hope it isn't someone from that LHC Rap.
Damn! I think I would vote for you in November!
I second that.
I've never taken a class in politics, never run for an office, didn't even know much about taxes 5 years ago; how come your post seems so obvious - yet candidate after candidate I haven't heard anything that smart come out of any of their mouths. (minus one - of course). Can it not be simplified like this? Do either of the candidates 'really' care as much as we do?
This doesn't automatically mean they're going to go about investigating anyone and everyone on a whim.
However, if there is nothing that prevents them from doing just that...
Are we still the Land of the Free?
Does it really matter? Do younger gymnasts have a significant advantage over gymnasts a couple of years older?
It isn't just if they have an advantage or not. If they weren't using these 14-year-olds, then who would be on the team? They wouldn't be able to use their best gymnasts, and they wouldn't be a gold medal contender.
The US gymnasts proved they were far better anyway. One fall on the balance beam - vs. - one fall and 3 balance checks per girl != US not catching up for gold. I think the individual awards proved just that.
I really would like to see somebody make the leap and extend that argument to defend downloading movies. Anyone care to make the leap?
I don't think we are talking much of a leap here. I know lots of people that go to the movies every weekend; I don't think I know anyone that buys a CD per week anymore (or a concert for that matter).
The two students at Georgia Tech that hacked the campus Blackboard swipe system (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/15/student_hackers_we_didnt_defeat/).The general idea was that it didn't matter how secure the encryption-system was, if the physical system was easy to get to. You don't have to figure out what information is being sent to the machine, all they had to do was 'capture' a 'yes-there-is-enough-money-on-the-card' response, then duplicate. Hey free snacks!!
You know what would rock, an infinite gift card to Wendy's.
Why are you guys focusing on bashing the headline instead on the actual problem?
Are you new here?
If I steal a car then someone else no longer has it.
If I pirate a song, everyone +1 has that song. This actually makes it more likely to be heard actually.
Great Post.
Music is an Art. Photography is an art. There are people that spend a lifetime perfecting taking photos. Name 10 famous photographers.
My point is, why should musicians be so protected. If I don't feel that your picture is worth one of my dollars, then I don't buy your picture. If I don't feel that your song is worth a dollar, then I don't buy your song, but I may pirate it. If I do want to buy a song, then I want most of the money going to the artist, if not all.