Giveing you the benefit of the doubt, the tiny little place next door to my office in Buttfuck Alberta, Canada for one. Seriously, if you can get one here, you can get one anywhere (they're limited to only a couple of basic mobos and they'll try and make you get windows, but you can usually bargain them out of it by upgrading something else).
For online, you'd probably get exactly what you want by customizing one from these guys which also include several versions of windows and "no OS" as purchase options.
Try the ads from google!
It even matches the color-scheme. Very neat.
It doesn't however, keep up with changes to the colour scheme, once your app is up and running.
Not that this is really an issue, just an FYI.
I've opted to reply to this rather than mod.
While I think "write-once, run-anywhere" is a bit of a misnomer, it does actually live up to the hype, imho.
You can't really appreciate it however, until you've spent weeks porting C code between platforms, and a few hours porting similar Java code.
I've had headaches porting perl too (though I must admit its much better now). Things these days are much better for people *trying* to develop cross-platform applications in Java and a number of other languages and APIs, but when it gets sprung on you as a requirement late in the game (latter revisions, new customers, etc) porting a Java app is a godsend.
There's alot of valid reasons to hate any language (I've studied 22 languages and in their own way, I think they all suck), but that particular reason doesn't apply to Java.
The problem there isn't the dealer per se. Its getting used to the mindset that the repricussions of breaking a law and not getting caught are marginal, and having done it once, it becomes easier in the future.
While growing it oneself is MUCH easier to justify ethically (i.e. not spending one's money to further a marajuana syndicate) the bottom line is, the law is being broken and someone caught growning it will be demonized (by the courts and media) even moreso than someone spending money to buy a fix from a cartel.
The problem being the shader is just as much a reflection of the DX version or subrevision. Even more meaning gets lost in refenece to the fact its OpenGL-driven which lacks shader revisions entirely.
To simply state the DX version that matches the one on the graphics card packaging, Joe user understands he can run it or he can't.
Like the rest of us, he probably hasn't insured them unless he happens to take pix for a living--so the value probably comes out to the cost of the memory card and possibly a few hundred for incidentals.
You can download a torrent of the laserdisc version, burn your own DVD (or keep it on your desktop and watch it there) of it and not feel an ounce of guilt about pirating something which "does not exist"
Torrent here
If Lucas can't be bothered to take 20 minutes out of his day and do this so I can pay him, I'm just not going to pay him.
Don't be absurd. There's alot more stupidity or compassion involved than honour, but you can't just dismiss the honour of many a killing.
Short of seeing into the future and stopping it, people are going to kill people, deliberatly and accidentally no matter what religion, law or punishment you enact about it. Blaming it on religion or society is a moot point, but understanding that someone else has had a few hundred or even thousand years of functioning society without our passing (Western) judement on them will take us alot farther about how to integrate them them into a collective, functioning society.
My point in reference to age wasn't that he was unitellegent, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they do something to prove otherwise--it was more an expression of frustration at being patronized by someone too cowardly to put his own thoughts out there for criticism, or at the very least offering some form of rebuttal rather than simply finding the best flaw in his understanding of what I've said.
As I've asked him, is your expectation that in a good anarchy, everyone is going to mass murder, pilliage and rape and then try and justify it. Is this because if there was no laws about it you would cross these lines? Is your own sense of ethics is dictated to you by the state? Is this univeral motivation to do wrong the flaw in my logic? Should you be voting if you can't decide what's right and wrong for yourself?
Hmm. well, your guess was close. I was that kid minus the progressive school more than a decade ago. I'm immersed in right-wing rhetoric and extreme fundamentalism day in and out, where I live and frankly, it just doesn't work for me anymore. One of those annoying little bastards that kept asking "why" and getting substandard answers--I'm sure you know the type, so I can be that steriotype instead.
My point here is the same one I'll make to the kid below, which is where I ask some questions of my own and see where that takes us.
You really seem to be of the opinion that everyone is going to mass murder, pilliage and rape and cross every ethical boundry in as little time as they can, and then try and justify it or pass the blame of it to religion or society or their parents or some other crap. But lets step back for a second and ask if there were no laws about it, would you would cross these lines more freely than you would otherwise? Is your only sense of ethics dictated to you by church and state? Is this the flaw in my logic? If this is the case, should anyone be voting when we can't decide what's right and wrong for themself? I realize its rhetoric, but what about philosophy isnt?
My own limited perception doesn't see it that way. I hold myself to a higher standard than you think, and I would expect the same is true of most people. I don't see it in athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists or christians, nor do I see it in intellegent or stupid people. Where I see it falling apart in in psychopaths, I see it in the criminally depraived, I see it in gangs and mobs which are psychologically outside the realm of personal accountability and I see it in anyone pushed to their limits of tolerance which frankly, are a universal problem outside the influence of any law, religion or culture.
And no, I doubt its a new idea, but I came to these questions and answers on my own, and I've tweaked them slightly with every new person with their own set of convictions that I've met. I've taken a long hard look at what I believe thanks to you, but I don't see a really convincing argument against it, just some unconstructive criticism which frustrates me, especially when mixed with the emotional crutch called condescention.
But the great thing here is you and I are free to believe what we like, and if we disagree, we disagree. My own observation is society on the whole is better for it.
But that illustrates MY problem with rape. I stand by the statement of who am I to judge?
If you or some psycho out there can find an ethical treatment of rape, I'm all ears for it, and I'll reassess my position if it holds any water.
The point is, I can understand where honour killings have an ethical treatment--I don't just label it evil, and go of on some senseless and pointless tirade because that would make me a hypocrite, and reflect some incapacity to learn and/or understand the world beyond my own experiences.
I don't care to dwell on my issue because you've ignored the rest of my post--you just look for the flaws and tout how right you are. I don't wish to argue, I wish to think.
My guess here is you're well over 50, and too set in your ways to accept a shiney new free thought of your own, so I wish you and your tightly-closed mind whatever peace and happiness it can bring you.
To some extent, it does actually. Who am I to judge? Who are you? Are we really that enlighented? I'm not extemest or radical, nor do expect or live in fear that others around me will behave in extreme or radical manners unless they are really pressed. Don't kid yourself--christians kill all the time over matters of honour or even dumber reasons, just watch 20 minutes of American news. It seems to me also that whether a law is codified or not is less of a reflection of the beleifs of the people as a whole, than you'd think.
Killing children is something I personally believe I would choose not to do at any point (barring extreme circumstances, which I beleve makes anyone capable of anything) and no one I know (including my muslim friends) does it either--if one of them did, I'd really want to get inside their brains to know at what point they stopped being rational.
My hope is that all 3 bodies of law are smart enough to transcend their religious confictions and enact laws capable of outlawing things that make a society disfunctional. The Bible has no problem with rape--I however do. I can also see where laws governing monopolies, and driving under the influence have their place as well, but aside from modern cults, you won't see much of this in any religious doctrine.
That's all I'm saying. The moon is a bit past third quarter now.:D
"Welcome to our country. I'm not going to be a wad about your habits and traditions if you promise not to be a wad about mine. In the event one or both of us is an asshat, lets let a majority or some enlightened third party decide which of us is at fault, assign some recompense and get on with our lives."
Of course, as with anything, ymmv and this comes from the moon being at last quarter.
I think this is a pretty strong reflection of why not discussing religion is a problem, and promoting "politically correct" unawareness isn't really a working solution and only seems to aggrivate issues.
Firing someone for eating bacon qualifies one as an asshat. OTOH, having someone flaunt a disrespect for one's religion in one's face is frankly, the act of an asshat classified as insult, and I think the law, media nad general public should stand at about the same place as where an employer is required to take verbal abuse from an employee. Did the emloyer bring this (over)sensitivity to the attention of the employee? Did the employee do anything to acknoledge they understood the employer's issue(s)?
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this case, or the details therein--but it seems to me, that everything in the media is one-sided and accurate about one time in two (my own experiences comparing the journalistic merits revolving a handful of first-hand events) anyhow, so I'm not going to waste my time researching it.
I just can't help but wonder why it is my muslim friends don't care a lick when I eat bacon in front of them or some of my athiest friends don't care when I say "bless you" after they sneeze, and I personally, don't care when my jewish friends wish me a happy chanukah.
this [biggest]
THE FUNNIEST THING
About this Shirt Is That
by the time you realize it doesn't say anything
its too late to stop reading it
you dumb fuck
[smallest]
I came across this while meta-modding. I can't help but feel this comment is neither insightful, nor flamebait. Perhaps "Uninsightful?"
Having worked at a storage hardware r&d/developemnt firm, I can tell you as a fact that even the most specialised person working there could quite happily shift to some other part of the IT industry. In fact, that's what a number of us did after a recent round of layoffs. People worked at non-competetive firms before the came to work there and they proceeded to work at non-competetive firms after the layoffs.
Anyone painting themselves into a corner where the only thing they can do is work at one job at one firm or type of firm, pretty much deserves to flip burgers at McDonalds.
Quality. More specifically, the cost of implementing something capable of living that long.
Its pretty much the same reason you can't get a 20-30 year warranty for anything.
Assuming you could create a drive that lived 20 years and sell it at a reasonable price--lets face it, in 20 years when the drive fails, either the company or the consumer will have to spend the $100 for the bottom-of-the line 20 petabyte repalcement.
Or, to put it another way--would you *really* care tha you still have another 2 years worth of warranty on your 10 megabyte drive now in 2004?
To make it worse, not only have they replaced your old drive with something substantialy newer, but odds are you'll not buy another disk from them until the repalcement dies in another 20 years.
In general, it makes sense to warrany a product over the same period what the driver can be purchased and replaced by someting sufficiently similar in specification to the warrantied product.
Offering free upgrades into a period where a product is no longer marketed and is downright obsolete is shooting oneself in the foot.
They're getting fatter because now they have Internet. At least, that's why I am.
What I took from the article is the FCC regulation he's saying is needed is fundamentally different than the FCC's idiot crackdowns on "content." and I think he's right about the direction its taking us.
I don't see Turner's motives as anything other than he can't follow his own path to success a second time, so now he'll have to do something else and he doesn't want to--but that doesn't make his points any less valid.
What I read is that as there are bigger and fewer congomerates, the FCC doesn't have to stick their fingers much in anyone's business, because the conglomerates are bending over backwards to not rock the boat. There's a reason American TV is saturated with all this whitewash crap, and there's a reason Stern can't just jump ship and go somewhere else the way he has in the past.
The industry is obviously not going to regulate itself on this one, and since the industry controls what the majority of us think and believe, its a long, uphill battle which frankly, can only be fixed by regulation. Putting a cap on quanity owned is entirely differnt than regulating quality of what is owned.
Its fine to suggest a switch to alternate news sources, but the problem is they're already harder to find. There's still a decent overhead in getting news properly done, issues of accountability and whether something is verifiable, and is lastly pertinent or intersting, which are all requisites to providing news before even looking at going toe to toe with a source owned by a conglomerate.
Quite.
The true killer App for the Pentium was Windows 95, and by extension, things that only ran on 95 LIKE Quake, though that was a few years later.
While Windows 3.1 ran like a (misshappen) dream on the 486, when people switched to '95 they soon found incentive to upgrade their hardware within a matter of days too.
Mine played on a 266 fine without the hardware decoder. Good ole versions od PowerDVD and Cinemaster, back in the day.
And by fine, I mean there was a few seconds of stutter about once every 90 minutes of play time--depending on the disc, the CPU was railed to 100%, and once it was playing, yopu had to leave it alone, or the system would start to thrash.
Mythic has introduced an interesting approach in their DAOC game, which is to set up a pair of servers for people who want to roleplay and the remaining servers are for those more interested in the game mechanics, and extending the game world to the real one as well.
While I find the plot elements very weak in Mythic's game (the machanics are fun tho, especially player vs player raids), the idea of separating the two player types, and imposing a ban on those breaking charachter on a roleplaying server, shouldn't be hard for any other implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Giveing you the benefit of the doubt, the tiny little place next door to my office in Buttfuck Alberta, Canada for one. Seriously, if you can get one here, you can get one anywhere (they're limited to only a couple of basic mobos and they'll try and make you get windows, but you can usually bargain them out of it by upgrading something else).
For online, you'd probably get exactly what you want by customizing one from these guys which also include several versions of windows and "no OS" as purchase options. Try the ads from google!
It even matches the color-scheme. Very neat. It doesn't however, keep up with changes to the colour scheme, once your app is up and running. Not that this is really an issue, just an FYI.
While I think "write-once, run-anywhere" is a bit of a misnomer, it does actually live up to the hype, imho.
You can't really appreciate it however, until you've spent weeks porting C code between platforms, and a few hours porting similar Java code.
I've had headaches porting perl too (though I must admit its much better now). Things these days are much better for people *trying* to develop cross-platform applications in Java and a number of other languages and APIs, but when it gets sprung on you as a requirement late in the game (latter revisions, new customers, etc) porting a Java app is a godsend.
There's alot of valid reasons to hate any language (I've studied 22 languages and in their own way, I think they all suck), but that particular reason doesn't apply to Java.
While growing it oneself is MUCH easier to justify ethically (i.e. not spending one's money to further a marajuana syndicate) the bottom line is, the law is being broken and someone caught growning it will be demonized (by the courts and media) even moreso than someone spending money to buy a fix from a cartel.
The problem being the shader is just as much a reflection of the DX version or subrevision. Even more meaning gets lost in refenece to the fact its OpenGL-driven which lacks shader revisions entirely.
To simply state the DX version that matches the one on the graphics card packaging, Joe user understands he can run it or he can't.
Like the rest of us, he probably hasn't insured them unless he happens to take pix for a living--so the value probably comes out to the cost of the memory card and possibly a few hundred for incidentals.
Torrent here
If Lucas can't be bothered to take 20 minutes out of his day and do this so I can pay him, I'm just not going to pay him.
Short of seeing into the future and stopping it, people are going to kill people, deliberatly and accidentally no matter what religion, law or punishment you enact about it. Blaming it on religion or society is a moot point, but understanding that someone else has had a few hundred or even thousand years of functioning society without our passing (Western) judement on them will take us alot farther about how to integrate them them into a collective, functioning society.
My point in reference to age wasn't that he was unitellegent, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they do something to prove otherwise--it was more an expression of frustration at being patronized by someone too cowardly to put his own thoughts out there for criticism, or at the very least offering some form of rebuttal rather than simply finding the best flaw in his understanding of what I've said.
As I've asked him, is your expectation that in a good anarchy, everyone is going to mass murder, pilliage and rape and then try and justify it. Is this because if there was no laws about it you would cross these lines? Is your own sense of ethics is dictated to you by the state? Is this univeral motivation to do wrong the flaw in my logic? Should you be voting if you can't decide what's right and wrong for yourself?
My point here is the same one I'll make to the kid below, which is where I ask some questions of my own and see where that takes us.
You really seem to be of the opinion that everyone is going to mass murder, pilliage and rape and cross every ethical boundry in as little time as they can, and then try and justify it or pass the blame of it to religion or society or their parents or some other crap. But lets step back for a second and ask if there were no laws about it, would you would cross these lines more freely than you would otherwise? Is your only sense of ethics dictated to you by church and state? Is this the flaw in my logic? If this is the case, should anyone be voting when we can't decide what's right and wrong for themself? I realize its rhetoric, but what about philosophy isnt?
My own limited perception doesn't see it that way. I hold myself to a higher standard than you think, and I would expect the same is true of most people. I don't see it in athiests, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists or christians, nor do I see it in intellegent or stupid people. Where I see it falling apart in in psychopaths, I see it in the criminally depraived, I see it in gangs and mobs which are psychologically outside the realm of personal accountability and I see it in anyone pushed to their limits of tolerance which frankly, are a universal problem outside the influence of any law, religion or culture.
And no, I doubt its a new idea, but I came to these questions and answers on my own, and I've tweaked them slightly with every new person with their own set of convictions that I've met. I've taken a long hard look at what I believe thanks to you, but I don't see a really convincing argument against it, just some unconstructive criticism which frustrates me, especially when mixed with the emotional crutch called condescention.
But the great thing here is you and I are free to believe what we like, and if we disagree, we disagree. My own observation is society on the whole is better for it.
Thank you.
But that illustrates MY problem with rape. I stand by the statement of who am I to judge?
If you or some psycho out there can find an ethical treatment of rape, I'm all ears for it, and I'll reassess my position if it holds any water.
The point is, I can understand where honour killings have an ethical treatment--I don't just label it evil, and go of on some senseless and pointless tirade because that would make me a hypocrite, and reflect some incapacity to learn and/or understand the world beyond my own experiences.
I don't care to dwell on my issue because you've ignored the rest of my post--you just look for the flaws and tout how right you are. I don't wish to argue, I wish to think.
My guess here is you're well over 50, and too set in your ways to accept a shiney new free thought of your own, so I wish you and your tightly-closed mind whatever peace and happiness it can bring you.
Look here
Killing children is something I personally believe I would choose not to do at any point (barring extreme circumstances, which I beleve makes anyone capable of anything) and no one I know (including my muslim friends) does it either--if one of them did, I'd really want to get inside their brains to know at what point they stopped being rational.
My hope is that all 3 bodies of law are smart enough to transcend their religious confictions and enact laws capable of outlawing things that make a society disfunctional. The Bible has no problem with rape--I however do. I can also see where laws governing monopolies, and driving under the influence have their place as well, but aside from modern cults, you won't see much of this in any religious doctrine.
That's all I'm saying. The moon is a bit past third quarter now. :D
"Welcome to our country. I'm not going to be a wad about your habits and traditions if you promise not to be a wad about mine. In the event one or both of us is an asshat, lets let a majority or some enlightened third party decide which of us is at fault, assign some recompense and get on with our lives."
Of course, as with anything, ymmv and this comes from the moon being at last quarter.
I think this is a pretty strong reflection of why not discussing religion is a problem, and promoting "politically correct" unawareness isn't really a working solution and only seems to aggrivate issues.
Firing someone for eating bacon qualifies one as an asshat. OTOH, having someone flaunt a disrespect for one's religion in one's face is frankly, the act of an asshat classified as insult, and I think the law, media nad general public should stand at about the same place as where an employer is required to take verbal abuse from an employee. Did the emloyer bring this (over)sensitivity to the attention of the employee? Did the employee do anything to acknoledge they understood the employer's issue(s)?
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this case, or the details therein--but it seems to me, that everything in the media is one-sided and accurate about one time in two (my own experiences comparing the journalistic merits revolving a handful of first-hand events) anyhow, so I'm not going to waste my time researching it.
I just can't help but wonder why it is my muslim friends don't care a lick when I eat bacon in front of them or some of my athiest friends don't care when I say "bless you" after they sneeze, and I personally, don't care when my jewish friends wish me a happy chanukah.
Some liberal Food for thought :)
this
[biggest]
THE FUNNIEST THING
About this Shirt Is That
by the time you realize it doesn't say anything
its too late to stop reading it
you dumb fuck
[smallest]
eh!
Having worked at a storage hardware r&d/developemnt firm, I can tell you as a fact that even the most specialised person working there could quite happily shift to some other part of the IT industry. In fact, that's what a number of us did after a recent round of layoffs. People worked at non-competetive firms before the came to work there and they proceeded to work at non-competetive firms after the layoffs.
Anyone painting themselves into a corner where the only thing they can do is work at one job at one firm or type of firm, pretty much deserves to flip burgers at McDonalds.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=52311&cid=5193 131
Give or take a half million ./ reading geeks.
What crappy school did you go to?
Quality. More specifically, the cost of implementing something capable of living that long.
Its pretty much the same reason you can't get a 20-30 year warranty for anything.
Assuming you could create a drive that lived 20 years and sell it at a reasonable price--lets face it, in 20 years when the drive fails, either the company or the consumer will have to spend the $100 for the bottom-of-the line 20 petabyte repalcement.
Or, to put it another way--would you *really* care tha you still have another 2 years worth of warranty on your 10 megabyte drive now in 2004?
To make it worse, not only have they replaced your old drive with something substantialy newer, but odds are you'll not buy another disk from them until the repalcement dies in another 20 years.
In general, it makes sense to warrany a product over the same period what the driver can be purchased and replaced by someting sufficiently similar in specification to the warrantied product.
Offering free upgrades into a period where a product is no longer marketed and is downright obsolete is shooting oneself in the foot.
What I took from the article is the FCC regulation he's saying is needed is fundamentally different than the FCC's idiot crackdowns on "content." and I think he's right about the direction its taking us.
I don't see Turner's motives as anything other than he can't follow his own path to success a second time, so now he'll have to do something else and he doesn't want to--but that doesn't make his points any less valid.
What I read is that as there are bigger and fewer congomerates, the FCC doesn't have to stick their fingers much in anyone's business, because the conglomerates are bending over backwards to not rock the boat. There's a reason American TV is saturated with all this whitewash crap, and there's a reason Stern can't just jump ship and go somewhere else the way he has in the past.
The industry is obviously not going to regulate itself on this one, and since the industry controls what the majority of us think and believe, its a long, uphill battle which frankly, can only be fixed by regulation. Putting a cap on quanity owned is entirely differnt than regulating quality of what is owned.
Its fine to suggest a switch to alternate news sources, but the problem is they're already harder to find. There's still a decent overhead in getting news properly done, issues of accountability and whether something is verifiable, and is lastly pertinent or intersting, which are all requisites to providing news before even looking at going toe to toe with a source owned by a conglomerate.
I found it a good read here
While Windows 3.1 ran like a (misshappen) dream on the 486, when people switched to '95 they soon found incentive to upgrade their hardware within a matter of days too.
The good ole days of PCI, Pentium, Plug and Pray.
And by fine, I mean there was a few seconds of stutter about once every 90 minutes of play time--depending on the disc, the CPU was railed to 100%, and once it was playing, yopu had to leave it alone, or the system would start to thrash.
While I find the plot elements very weak in Mythic's game (the machanics are fun tho, especially player vs player raids), the idea of separating the two player types, and imposing a ban on those breaking charachter on a roleplaying server, shouldn't be hard for any other implementation.