I have installed XP on several systems that were sub-500Mhz. Not much under, but under nonetheless. And one, IIRC had 64MB RAM. Mind you, it ran like *ass*, and had 2000 reinstalled. Nor did I have to do anything special in order to install it on these machines.
When XP first came out I put it on a machine I had that was a 450Mhz machine with 128MB of RAM. It worked and was stable, but it was pretty slow. I did have to bump up the memory in it to bring it to a useable state.
Tommy Lee and Lars Ulrich are hardly significant in their bands. Any reasonably competent drummer could do what they do. They're barely average drummers.
Some names I'd add to the list of significant drummers in place of Lee and Ulrich: Neil Peart, Mike Portnoy, Danny Carey, Matt Cameron, Tim Alexander... all of which I would say are above average drummers.
Environmental benefits in comparison to petroleum based fuels include:
* Biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately 50% and carbon dioxide by 78.45% on a net lifecycle basis because the carbon in biodiesel emissions is recycled from carbon that was already in the atmosphere, rather than being new carbon from petroleum that was sequestered in the earth's crust. (Sheehan, 1998)
* It also eliminates sulfur emissions (SO2), because biodiesel doesn't include sulfur.
* Biodiesel reduces by as much as 65% the emission of particulates (small particles of solid combustion products).
* Biodiesel does produce more NOx emissions than petrodiesel, but these emissions can be reduced through the use of catalytic converters. Petrodiesel vehicles have generally not included catalytic converters because the sulfur content in that fuel destroys the devices, but biodiesel does not contain sulfur. The increase in NOx emmisions may also be due to the higher cetane rating of biodiesel. Properly designed and tuned engines may eliminate this increase.
* It has a higher cetane rating than petrodiesel, and therefore ignites more rapidly when injected into the engine.
"So, biodiesel=good--a step in the right direction--but, we still need to structure our lives and society so that we drive less (way less) and rely less on burning feul (however sexy)"
"Everything I've ever seen the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation give money to has been a very important cause with absolutely no potential to benefit them or MS materially in any way."
Not necessarily. The Gates Foundation has donated many many computers to libraries and schools and, of course, those computers come installed with designated MS software. It'd be ridiculous for him to put anything but on it, really, but this is certainly beneficial for MS.
Before anyone jumps down my throat for bitching about that, I'm not. I'm not complaining about it because I believe that introducing computers into areas where there are few/none available is always a good thing. These computers come loaded with educational software and couple an internet connection with that and you've got an arseload of information at the fingertips of whomever is on it. A computer loaded with MS software for free where one wasn't available before is infinitely better than no computer available at all.
Good on Bill Gates for his hefty donations to worthy causes.
"We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes"
Come again? There's been more than adequate observation of speciation and how the ID proponents get to continually say that there isn't simply blows my mind.
This whole discussion about ID in science is baffling. That it's even allowed to be considered speaks volumes about Joe and Jane Average's intelligence.
Here are some alarming numbers on Creationism (ID)/Evolution. Only 26% believing in evolution with 42% believing that humans have existed as we do now from our very inception.
Google pays your salary, they make available the means to work on a project of your choosing, you have all of Google's resources to aid/supplement your project. Why shouldn't Google own the idea? It's hardly anything new. They're working for Google and Google plays a huge role in making that project a reality rather than a thought in your head.
As has been mentioned, if they want to own all of their great ideas then work on it on your own. Find your own capital, resources, help, etc. and retire a billionaire.
Perhaps He knew exactly what would happen. Perhaps He loved the idea of creating a free soul more than he loved the need to control everything.
I think of it as parenting. While our parents aren't omnicient, they chose to create a life knowing full well that they can guide us and set out rules but for certain those rules/guidelines would be broken from time to time.
Perhaps we were already all souls before man was created and God wanted to give us the chance to experience life on Earth and He loved us so much that he gave us the ability. He gave us a vehicle to do it with knowing full well we would sin against Him, and perhaps that we will also see the light and reunite with Him in our future.
That doesn't seem such a far stretch from the typical role of parents/children today. Parents have rules. Kids think the rules are bogus and disobey. The parents saw it coming. Yet later in life you realize just how wise your parents were and that they continued to love you no matter what you did.
I'm just spitballing here. I'm not an absolute believer in God. I don't say there isn't one, nor will I say there is. I've got my own ideas and they work for me. I think that someone's 'vision' of what God is is much like a fingerprint. Subtlely different for each and every person.
The earliest records we have of marriage ceremonies is 2350 BCE in Mesopotamia and had little to do with love or religion in any way, shape or form.
It was intended to bind women (yes, more than one) to a man so that any children born to that woman were guaranteed to be of the man's seed. They were simply baby makers. Property of the men to continue their lineage. If the woman was failing to produce offspring the man was allowed to give her back.
In Greece and Rome the married men were free to satisfy their sexual urges however they saw fit. Concubines, prostitutes and, if they so desired, male lovers.
As Catholicism gained influence in Europe it became necessary for a wedding to be performed by a priest for it to be a legally recognized marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's that marriage was written into canon law as a sacrament.
So your vision of marriage is essentially a 500 year old institution. While for the previous 3500 men were free to marry many women and cavort on the side with ladies of the night. Which is it? The real traditional marriage or the one that you've been told to think is traditional when it's anything but?
From http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
I would be elated to see it hit 20%. A respectable percentage of marketshare that would force web designers/developers to acknowledge its existence and to code for cross-browser compatibility.
Anything over whatever that critical mass percentage may be is just gravy.
If, as it traverses between different areas, yes. One area is dusty, high winds carry dust on to the panels. As it continues on its mission it travels into new terrain. A more rocky area with less dust than before, now the wind is blowing more dust off than it is placing on.
More often than not there are still standards compliant ways to work around IE's incompatibilities. About the only situation I've found myself in that requires the use of non-CSS fixes is for a menu system such as that used in the GSU School of Music site linked to in this thread.
Is it efficient? Hell no. It gets bloated because you are setting declarations two or three times for each browser that is messing up the rendering. BUT, it works. And it's compliant.
Personally, I have no issue with MS adding things to CSS, provided they have 100% CSS support first (or at the least, equivalent support as other current browsers). If I can make a page using standards-compliant XHTML and CSS and have it work in IE/Moz/Opera/Konqueror... that's great. That's all I ask for. Moz has done the same thing with -moz-opacity. No one bitches about it because everything else (relatively speaking) works. If its foundation isn't compliant, there shouldn't be add-ons.
I've ordered relevant computer books online during work hours with my bosses knowledge. Had that information been logged and not kept secure I'd be livid about it. While they may not all be valid reasons for doing so, there certainly are legitimate ones as well.
Bands often have many versions of their music on CD as the songs progress. They listen to it for missed beats, bad sound, possible enhancements, whatever. It's not uncommon at all.
The Beatles were also head and shoulders a better band than U2. Personally, I can't stand them. Joshua Tree, great... since then it's just been ass.
To my knowledge, one of the biggest bands to rely on bootlegs and such are the Grateful Dead. They weren't big on studio work and there are shitloads of bootlegs available. A buddy of mine in high school was a huge Dead fan and had 4 shoeboxes full of bootleg tapes.
Metallica once thrived on bootlegs to get recognition. Then they got it and decided that it was a bad thing. That is a band that has lost a lot of respect from a large portion of long-time fans and they're not likely to win many back.
I could be off but I seem to remember reading/hearing something a while back when I wondered why, if we are the highest evolved animal are we so useless at birth. All we can do is breathe and evacuate when a calf is able to stand on it's feet within mins/hours?
It had something to do with most animals are born, as said previously much later than us, but that it will pretty much live it's entire life on instinct. Very little in the way of learning new things... possibly adapting what it already innately knows, but no ground-breaking revelations and such.
Whereas we, as humans, although useless at birth, have a much higher capacity to have free thought/free will and by having very little instilled instinctually, we have more room to grow mentally where others can't.
That could be completely off the mark. I don't remember where I read that or even what the source was. If that's way off I'm sure I'll be told. Just thought I'd throw it out there for debunking/confirmation.
It's already been stated that all code created by employees becomes the property of the company as a whole, but even if that wasn't the case... if these cases are being thrown out and it's been shown that there was no code ripped off in the cases that lead to SCO's crumbling, I doubt that one of their employees would fare any better, especially with considerably less capital to fund the proceedings.
Slashdot Mirror
I have installed XP on several systems that were sub-500Mhz. Not much under, but under nonetheless. And one, IIRC had 64MB RAM. Mind you, it ran like *ass*, and had 2000 reinstalled. Nor did I have to do anything special in order to install it on these machines.
When XP first came out I put it on a machine I had that was a 450Mhz machine with 128MB of RAM. It worked and was stable, but it was pretty slow. I did have to bump up the memory in it to bring it to a useable state.
Tommy Lee and Lars Ulrich are hardly significant in their bands. Any reasonably competent drummer could do what they do. They're barely average drummers.
Some names I'd add to the list of significant drummers in place of Lee and Ulrich: Neil Peart, Mike Portnoy, Danny Carey, Matt Cameron, Tim Alexander... all of which I would say are above average drummers.
That was my reason as well. Just installed it on my laptop and so far so good.
How about EphPod?
It's what I've been using since I bought my iPod. Didn't even attempt to install iTunes.
Sadly, it's not open source, but here's a HOWTO get your iPod and EphPod working in Linux (with Wine).
From Wikipedia:
Environmental benefits in comparison to petroleum based fuels include:
* Biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately 50% and carbon dioxide by 78.45% on a net lifecycle basis because the carbon in biodiesel emissions is recycled from carbon that was already in the atmosphere, rather than being new carbon from petroleum that was sequestered in the earth's crust. (Sheehan, 1998)
* Biodiesel contains fewer aromatic hydrocarbons: benzofluoranthene: 56% reduction; Benzopyrenes: 71% reduction.
* It also eliminates sulfur emissions (SO2), because biodiesel doesn't include sulfur.
* Biodiesel reduces by as much as 65% the emission of particulates (small particles of solid combustion products).
* Biodiesel does produce more NOx emissions than petrodiesel, but these emissions can be reduced through the use of catalytic converters. Petrodiesel vehicles have generally not included catalytic converters because the sulfur content in that fuel destroys the devices, but biodiesel does not contain sulfur. The increase in NOx emmisions may also be due to the higher cetane rating of biodiesel. Properly designed and tuned engines may eliminate this increase.
* It has a higher cetane rating than petrodiesel, and therefore ignites more rapidly when injected into the engine.
"So, biodiesel=good--a step in the right direction--but, we still need to structure our lives and society so that we drive less (way less) and rely less on burning feul (however sexy)"
And that, I wholly agree with.
"Everything I've ever seen the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation give money to has been a very important cause with absolutely no potential to benefit them or MS materially in any way."
Not necessarily. The Gates Foundation has donated many many computers to libraries and schools and, of course, those computers come installed with designated MS software. It'd be ridiculous for him to put anything but on it, really, but this is certainly beneficial for MS.
Before anyone jumps down my throat for bitching about that, I'm not. I'm not complaining about it because I believe that introducing computers into areas where there are few/none available is always a good thing. These computers come loaded with educational software and couple an internet connection with that and you've got an arseload of information at the fingertips of whomever is on it. A computer loaded with MS software for free where one wasn't available before is infinitely better than no computer available at all.
Good on Bill Gates for his hefty donations to worthy causes.
"We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes"
Come again? There's been more than adequate observation of speciation and how the ID proponents get to continually say that there isn't simply blows my mind.
This whole discussion about ID in science is baffling. That it's even allowed to be considered speaks volumes about Joe and Jane Average's intelligence.
Here are some alarming numbers on Creationism (ID)/Evolution. Only 26% believing in evolution with 42% believing that humans have existed as we do now from our very inception.
It would be nice if CafePress' Premium service would allow you to run the store from your own domain rather than http://cafepress.com/yourstorename/.
They've got their name plastered all over the pages with the top banner and a 'powered by' in the bottom.
Google pays your salary, they make available the means to work on a project of your choosing, you have all of Google's resources to aid/supplement your project. Why shouldn't Google own the idea? It's hardly anything new. They're working for Google and Google plays a huge role in making that project a reality rather than a thought in your head.
As has been mentioned, if they want to own all of their great ideas then work on it on your own. Find your own capital, resources, help, etc. and retire a billionaire.
Not the best argument. Firefox has outstanding vulnerabilities from 2004-08-30. It's rated Less Critical, but still.
That said, kudos to the team though for the quick update to such critical issues.
Perhaps He knew exactly what would happen. Perhaps He loved the idea of creating a free soul more than he loved the need to control everything.
I think of it as parenting. While our parents aren't omnicient, they chose to create a life knowing full well that they can guide us and set out rules but for certain those rules/guidelines would be broken from time to time.
Perhaps we were already all souls before man was created and God wanted to give us the chance to experience life on Earth and He loved us so much that he gave us the ability. He gave us a vehicle to do it with knowing full well we would sin against Him, and perhaps that we will also see the light and reunite with Him in our future.
That doesn't seem such a far stretch from the typical role of parents/children today. Parents have rules. Kids think the rules are bogus and disobey. The parents saw it coming. Yet later in life you realize just how wise your parents were and that they continued to love you no matter what you did.
I'm just spitballing here. I'm not an absolute believer in God. I don't say there isn't one, nor will I say there is. I've got my own ideas and they work for me. I think that someone's 'vision' of what God is is much like a fingerprint. Subtlely different for each and every person.
The earliest records we have of marriage ceremonies is 2350 BCE in Mesopotamia and had little to do with love or religion in any way, shape or form.
It was intended to bind women (yes, more than one) to a man so that any children born to that woman were guaranteed to be of the man's seed. They were simply baby makers. Property of the men to continue their lineage. If the woman was failing to produce offspring the man was allowed to give her back.
In Greece and Rome the married men were free to satisfy their sexual urges however they saw fit. Concubines, prostitutes and, if they so desired, male lovers.
As Catholicism gained influence in Europe it became necessary for a wedding to be performed by a priest for it to be a legally recognized marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's that marriage was written into canon law as a sacrament.
So your vision of marriage is essentially a 500 year old institution. While for the previous 3500 men were free to marry many women and cavort on the side with ladies of the night. Which is it? The real traditional marriage or the one that you've been told to think is traditional when it's anything but?
From http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
Let's not bring facts into this to ruin a perfectly overdone joke. :D
Do you have a better strategy for the coming Canadian invasion of the U.S.?
*sigh*
Yes, destoryed by Diefenbaker two weeks before they were to test a new Iroquois engine which were very likely going to break the world speed record.
I dunno what it is, but I hear they have the Internet on computers now.
No one expects 98% market share.
I would be elated to see it hit 20%. A respectable percentage of marketshare that would force web designers/developers to acknowledge its existence and to code for cross-browser compatibility.
Anything over whatever that critical mass percentage may be is just gravy.
If, as it traverses between different areas, yes. One area is dusty, high winds carry dust on to the panels. As it continues on its mission it travels into new terrain. A more rocky area with less dust than before, now the wind is blowing more dust off than it is placing on.
Or you could record it to a hard drive on a PVR could you not?
More often than not there are still standards compliant ways to work around IE's incompatibilities. About the only situation I've found myself in that requires the use of non-CSS fixes is for a menu system such as that used in the GSU School of Music site linked to in this thread.
Is it efficient? Hell no. It gets bloated because you are setting declarations two or three times for each browser that is messing up the rendering. BUT, it works. And it's compliant.
Personally, I have no issue with MS adding things to CSS, provided they have 100% CSS support first (or at the least, equivalent support as other current browsers). If I can make a page using standards-compliant XHTML and CSS and have it work in IE/Moz/Opera/Konqueror... that's great. That's all I ask for. Moz has done the same thing with -moz-opacity. No one bitches about it because everything else (relatively speaking) works. If its foundation isn't compliant, there shouldn't be add-ons.
I've ordered relevant computer books online during work hours with my bosses knowledge. Had that information been logged and not kept secure I'd be livid about it. While they may not all be valid reasons for doing so, there certainly are legitimate ones as well.
Bands often have many versions of their music on CD as the songs progress. They listen to it for missed beats, bad sound, possible enhancements, whatever. It's not uncommon at all.
The Beatles were also head and shoulders a better band than U2. Personally, I can't stand them. Joshua Tree, great... since then it's just been ass.
To my knowledge, one of the biggest bands to rely on bootlegs and such are the Grateful Dead. They weren't big on studio work and there are shitloads of bootlegs available. A buddy of mine in high school was a huge Dead fan and had 4 shoeboxes full of bootleg tapes.
Metallica once thrived on bootlegs to get recognition. Then they got it and decided that it was a bad thing. That is a band that has lost a lot of respect from a large portion of long-time fans and they're not likely to win many back.
I could be off but I seem to remember reading/hearing something a while back when I wondered why, if we are the highest evolved animal are we so useless at birth. All we can do is breathe and evacuate when a calf is able to stand on it's feet within mins/hours?
It had something to do with most animals are born, as said previously much later than us, but that it will pretty much live it's entire life on instinct. Very little in the way of learning new things... possibly adapting what it already innately knows, but no ground-breaking revelations and such.
Whereas we, as humans, although useless at birth, have a much higher capacity to have free thought/free will and by having very little instilled instinctually, we have more room to grow mentally where others can't.
That could be completely off the mark. I don't remember where I read that or even what the source was. If that's way off I'm sure I'll be told. Just thought I'd throw it out there for debunking/confirmation.
It's already been stated that all code created by employees becomes the property of the company as a whole, but even if that wasn't the case... if these cases are being thrown out and it's been shown that there was no code ripped off in the cases that lead to SCO's crumbling, I doubt that one of their employees would fare any better, especially with considerably less capital to fund the proceedings.