You know, I normally don't reply to posts liek this, but I'll let you know. If you are *REALLY* nice to those big box stores (Like Staples) they can hack those computer packages up and allow you to choose your own parts.
Mars has an atmosphere that would protect the "base" from debris and space junk that would otherwise plunge into the surface of the moon. Also, when they bring water into the equation, I presume they are talking about rust and other such destruction -- last time I checked the atmosphere on Mars was well below zero, thus water can't be much of a concern. I'd actually have to say that Mars would make a better candidate, as it offers a better chance for scientific discovery.
But then again, the moon is an easier and quicker target... (sigh, patience is a virtue)
In scientific tests, one can take a solution, mix it in another solution, and observe the results. Then one can make a single change keeping all other variables identical and perform the same tests. Those results are (arguably), if not valid, then at least a decent indication of a pattern. This summary (and I presume the article?) attempts to use this methodology with music artists -- something that by its very definition stands itself apart from science. Just because one individual's CD sells a certain number of copies through one venue, while another does comparatively poorer through another does not mean that the results are valid.
First you are taking one individual CD's sales through a store and comparing them to another CD's sales through an online distribution. While this test is almost impossible to perform (release the song at the same time through both channels and see the online distribution win and people would say that it simply hurt the CD sales, or alternatively, vice versa), it might have been a better comparison to simply take one popular artist's newer album, release it exclusively online and compare it with previous releases. Even this is not an indestructable argument, but at least you would be comparing Granny Smiths to Red Delicious, and not fruits to vegetables.
Now I am by no means a scientific person (having a greater interest in history) but it astounds me (through every century) when one side tries to sound scientific by saying, look! ho! this way works better and one can see it conclusively because the stars are in the sky and not in the ocean! This was pretty much a complete red herring of an article.
I honestly wonder what historians will think of this time period, say, one hundred years from now. Think of how we view the Western European Dark Ages, where education slowed to a halt, an organization managed to secure society and manipulate it at will, while those in the East jumped leaps and bounds ahead of them. Gosh, sounds vaguely familiar....
Allow me to clear up my point. I am not saying that they CAN'T spend time on their iPods. What I am saying is that more effort and attention seem directed at things such as this lawsuit than anything that I would percieve to be the bigger issues. I am not infringing on people's right to just compensation (if, indeed, it is warranted), but rather to their apathy to other issues.
Some might argue that there are lots of protests and such regarding the issues I mentioned, and that the reasons they are not covered is a matter of "shock sells", but having worked in both the private and public sectors, I would have to subjectively say people are more concerned with their own dollars, then with their fellow man. Obviously, I am going on a tangent here, it is just that things such as a lawsuit seem rather frivilous when compared to, to keep this post somewhat grounded, say software patents, or the number of idiotic lawsuits being served up (see XML). Why wouldn't Americans stand up for THOSE things? Many of them may not know, but those who I explain the concept to seem totally apathetic. They understand the concept, and what is at stake, btu they are apathetic. Get them a new MP3 player and suddently their ears perk up...
Nope, not the same guy... But you obviously missed my point. I didn't mean that people couldn't be upset with only the Nano, or other major issues. The two are not mutually exclusive. What I was ticked off about is that people only come out of the woodwork when it is their personal property that is being affected. Oh well, mod me down as you see fit.
... Have anything better to worry about? I mean, we jump when our MP3 players scratch, but major issues like voting, the environment, and the homeless are all just glossed over as something too complicated to worry about, or not worth the effort. I am not trying to flame anyone in particular, since if, indeed Apple produced a shoddy practice they should be held accountable. SOmetimes, I just feel as if people don't realize there is more to life then a little piece of plastic and silicon.
But I'm new here...
Re:Okay...How do I install these things...
on
The Boot Loader Showdown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Taken from Usenet --
If you have a WinXP installation CD, just boot it and select the
repair option and then do a fixmbr and a fixboot on the boot drive.
That should re-install the WinXP mbr and boot sector. You would need
something like Partition Magic to reclaim the linux partition for
WinXP. I am not sure what to do if you don't have a WinXP installation
CD. (Some WinXP installations only have a "recovery" CD). You could
try to find a Win98 boot floppy or a DOS boot floppy and then do a
fdisk/mbr to restore a DOS mbr. That should get rid of Grub, but you
will probably still have a problem booting WinXP.
What makes "smart" materials so smart? Are they given some form of IQ test to distinguish the "smart" materials from the "average" materials, or even worse, "the under-developed, less advanataged" materials? I know NASA only employs the top minds in America, but honestly I find this trend of catering to the "smart" things and turning the country's collective nose up at the disadvantaged to be a disturbing trend and I urge this country to think of the consequences of only caring about intelligence. We will breed terrorists, scholars, pedophiles, criminals and -- dare I say it -- Democrats!
Is the whole Netcraft thing done now, too tired, overused? I sincerely appologize. Allow me to rectify my error.
"In Soviet Russia, the profits Transmeta YOU!"
No? That one is also too overused? Okay, how about:
"Yeah but do they run Linu.." Pardon? They do? Oh...
"Well I'd love to see a Beowolf cluster of these..." Now what? There are clusters of these. Damn, well...
"Cowboy Neal is hot!" I fail to see how this sentence relates to Transmeta's profits, but know that it was through modding my post a troll that you drove me to it!
Well back in my day, we used nuts that we stripped from their bolts, tied to a string to shoot the mosquitoes out of the air like a veritable David facing Goliath...
A job at a Taiwan firm: $50,000 USD per year (Converted)
An order placed by said firm: 12 million USD (Converted)
Making a typo and putting every exec, and just abotu every other worker's kid in the ordering company through college: $251 million USD (converted).
For fixing your mistake, and everything else, there is MasterCard.
(Note: 98% interest fees apply on all orders over $250 million).
Well, no one will read this, but the "correct English" that you speak of does exist: the language is called "Queen's English".
"Queen's English" is defined as words and their spelling that are employed by the current monarch of Britain. If, however, the monarch is a king, then it would of course change to King's English.
While this may sound as if I am trolling, this is a fairly well known concept that was introduced to me by a university professor. The Queen could start spelling 'dog' as 'dogue', or pronounce 'juice' as 'JEW-ICE' and that spelling or pronounciation would be (as offical as something can be with no governing body) adopted officially as the "correct" spelling or pronunciation.
As for your comment about no standard book of "English", I would guess the most recent edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and any basic university English 101 textbook would serve that purpose.
The team will feature a lovely (if a little dazed) Hilary Swank as Major Beck Childs and Aaron Eckhart will be reprising his role as Dr. Josh Keyes. There will also be a host of other two-dimensional, transparent chaaracters who must get to the centre of the world to "jump start the Earth's core".
CEO: Uh huh. So... Who sent it? How do I tell him it was not worth it, what if the link is broken, and more importantly I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO!!! From now on, it is *your* job to filter all the email the executives of this company.
This should be quite obviously rated 'Score:0 non-sense'. The CEO has a very valid thing to say and asked for nothing terribly unreasonable...
Slashdot Mirror
So it is after this "bonding" as they call it that the citizen of Iraq will welcome their bomb-defusing soldier-hybrid overlords?
Just wait for the Slashdot dupe before reporting. That will have given the software authors at least six to eight hours headstart!
I jest, I jest!
At least, not until the dupe...
You know, I normally don't reply to posts liek this, but I'll let you know. If you are *REALLY* nice to those big box stores (Like Staples) they can hack those computer packages up and allow you to choose your own parts.
Mars has an atmosphere that would protect the "base" from debris and space junk that would otherwise plunge into the surface of the moon. Also, when they bring water into the equation, I presume they are talking about rust and other such destruction -- last time I checked the atmosphere on Mars was well below zero, thus water can't be much of a concern. I'd actually have to say that Mars would make a better candidate, as it offers a better chance for scientific discovery.
But then again, the moon is an easier and quicker target... (sigh, patience is a virtue)
I have a feeling some investors are going to be playing PIN the tail on the donkey...
Rimshot!
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week. Try the stake and don't forget to tip your hostess with your debit card...
In scientific tests, one can take a solution, mix it in another solution, and observe the results. Then one can make a single change keeping all other variables identical and perform the same tests. Those results are (arguably), if not valid, then at least a decent indication of a pattern. This summary (and I presume the article?) attempts to use this methodology with music artists -- something that by its very definition stands itself apart from science. Just because one individual's CD sells a certain number of copies through one venue, while another does comparatively poorer through another does not mean that the results are valid.
First you are taking one individual CD's sales through a store and comparing them to another CD's sales through an online distribution. While this test is almost impossible to perform (release the song at the same time through both channels and see the online distribution win and people would say that it simply hurt the CD sales, or alternatively, vice versa), it might have been a better comparison to simply take one popular artist's newer album, release it exclusively online and compare it with previous releases. Even this is not an indestructable argument, but at least you would be comparing Granny Smiths to Red Delicious, and not fruits to vegetables.
Now I am by no means a scientific person (having a greater interest in history) but it astounds me (through every century) when one side tries to sound scientific by saying, look! ho! this way works better and one can see it conclusively because the stars are in the sky and not in the ocean! This was pretty much a complete red herring of an article.
Staples Business Depot/Bureau en Gros have been doing this for months already....
I honestly wonder what historians will think of this time period, say, one hundred years from now. Think of how we view the Western European Dark Ages, where education slowed to a halt, an organization managed to secure society and manipulate it at will, while those in the East jumped leaps and bounds ahead of them. Gosh, sounds vaguely familiar....
Allow me to clear up my point. I am not saying that they CAN'T spend time on their iPods. What I am saying is that more effort and attention seem directed at things such as this lawsuit than anything that I would percieve to be the bigger issues. I am not infringing on people's right to just compensation (if, indeed, it is warranted), but rather to their apathy to other issues.
Some might argue that there are lots of protests and such regarding the issues I mentioned, and that the reasons they are not covered is a matter of "shock sells", but having worked in both the private and public sectors, I would have to subjectively say people are more concerned with their own dollars, then with their fellow man. Obviously, I am going on a tangent here, it is just that things such as a lawsuit seem rather frivilous when compared to, to keep this post somewhat grounded, say software patents, or the number of idiotic lawsuits being served up (see XML). Why wouldn't Americans stand up for THOSE things? Many of them may not know, but those who I explain the concept to seem totally apathetic. They understand the concept, and what is at stake, btu they are apathetic. Get them a new MP3 player and suddently their ears perk up...
Nope, not the same guy ... But you obviously missed my point. I didn't mean that people couldn't be upset with only the Nano, or other major issues. The two are not mutually exclusive. What I was ticked off about is that people only come out of the woodwork when it is their personal property that is being affected. Oh well, mod me down as you see fit.
... Have anything better to worry about? I mean, we jump when our MP3 players scratch, but major issues like voting, the environment, and the homeless are all just glossed over as something too complicated to worry about, or not worth the effort. I am not trying to flame anyone in particular, since if, indeed Apple produced a shoddy practice they should be held accountable. SOmetimes, I just feel as if people don't realize there is more to life then a little piece of plastic and silicon.
But I'm new here...
Taken from Usenet --
/mbr to restore a DOS mbr. That should get rid of Grub, but you
will probably still have a problem booting WinXP.
If you have a WinXP installation CD, just boot it and select the repair option and then do a fixmbr and a fixboot on the boot drive. That should re-install the WinXP mbr and boot sector. You would need something like Partition Magic to reclaim the linux partition for WinXP. I am not sure what to do if you don't have a WinXP installation CD. (Some WinXP installations only have a "recovery" CD). You could try to find a Win98 boot floppy or a DOS boot floppy and then do a fdisk
jimbo
What makes "smart" materials so smart? Are they given some form of IQ test to distinguish the "smart" materials from the "average" materials, or even worse, "the under-developed, less advanataged" materials? I know NASA only employs the top minds in America, but honestly I find this trend of catering to the "smart" things and turning the country's collective nose up at the disadvantaged to be a disturbing trend and I urge this country to think of the consequences of only caring about intelligence. We will breed terrorists, scholars, pedophiles, criminals and -- dare I say it -- Democrats!
Won't someone think of the children!
I knwo I am but what are yo^H^H^H...
Nevermind..
I'm sorry, did I miss the memo?
Is the whole Netcraft thing done now, too tired, overused? I sincerely appologize. Allow me to rectify my error.
"In Soviet Russia, the profits Transmeta YOU!"
No? That one is also too overused? Okay, how about: "Yeah but do they run Linu.." Pardon? They do? Oh...
"Well I'd love to see a Beowolf cluster of these..." Now what? There are clusters of these. Damn, well...
"Cowboy Neal is hot!" I fail to see how this sentence relates to Transmeta's profits, but know that it was through modding my post a troll that you drove me to it!
...And we damned well liked it to! I used a nut to whack the last o off of that "too"
Well back in my day, we used nuts that we stripped from their bolts, tied to a string to shoot the mosquitoes out of the air like a veritable David facing Goliath...
And we damned well liked it to!
Until Netcraft confirms it...
Give me a break, this is the first real Slashdot-ism that I've ever used outside of Soviet Russia...
A job at a Taiwan firm: $50,000 USD per year (Converted)
An order placed by said firm: 12 million USD (Converted)
Making a typo and putting every exec, and just abotu every other worker's kid in the ordering company through college: $251 million USD (converted). For fixing your mistake, and everything else, there is MasterCard.
(Note: 98% interest fees apply on all orders over $250 million).
Well, no one will read this, but the "correct English" that you speak of does exist: the language is called "Queen's English". "Queen's English" is defined as words and their spelling that are employed by the current monarch of Britain. If, however, the monarch is a king, then it would of course change to King's English. While this may sound as if I am trolling, this is a fairly well known concept that was introduced to me by a university professor. The Queen could start spelling 'dog' as 'dogue', or pronounce 'juice' as 'JEW-ICE' and that spelling or pronounciation would be (as offical as something can be with no governing body) adopted officially as the "correct" spelling or pronunciation. As for your comment about no standard book of "English", I would guess the most recent edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and any basic university English 101 textbook would serve that purpose.
The team will feature a lovely (if a little dazed) Hilary Swank as Major Beck Childs and Aaron Eckhart will be reprising his role as Dr. Josh Keyes. There will also be a host of other two-dimensional, transparent chaaracters who must get to the centre of the world to "jump start the Earth's core".
Coming Summer 2005!
Boy, you Americans forget the War of 1812 pretty quickly, don't you...
Granted, it was the British who razed Washington to the ground, btu we darn well helped!
CEO: Uh huh. So... Who sent it? How do I tell him it was not worth it, what if the link is broken, and more importantly I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO!!! From now on, it is *your* job to filter all the email the executives of this company.
This should be quite obviously rated 'Score:0 non-sense'. The CEO has a very valid thing to say and asked for nothing terribly unreasonable...
In Soviet Russia, spammers who are caught don't get a lawyer for 72 hours...