It's dumb to buy batteries for wireless mice. You buy accumulators and a charger. One pair. Plus one pair of decent quality batteries for use when the accumulators are charging, if you don't want to spend money on another pair of accumulators. The 2 NiMH 600mAh AAA and 2 standard Duracell AAA serve me for about 2 years by now, require the replacement-charging cycle about twice a month.
Re:Where to get a three-butten mouse with no rolle
on
Top Mice Compared
·
· Score: 1
Epecially in unix/X where the middle button is used a lot, it's annoying that it has a different feel from the other buttons.
You should look for mice that have it separate from the wheel then. I love mice with "middle" button under your thumb (on the side of the mouse). This way there's no moving the fingers to reach any of the three buttons, no problem of accidential scrolling when clicking it, and the wheel doesn't get in the way.
I agree the monitor is a top priority. I find it ridiculous to buy a revolutionary super-duper gfx card by saving money by buying a crappy 15" monitor for it.
Tell me -- Mister Anderson...what good is a graphics card if you are unable..to see???
A fuckin cord is a good thing. 2 fuckin cords is not-so-good thing. 4 fuckin cords are a major pain in the ass, especially if you like to put the keyboard on your knees for typing. I multitask on 2 PCs on regular basis (one textmode for IRC, mail, textmode www (i.e. game guides), taking notes, one for gfx WWW, games and all the stuff that requires gfx), with 2 keyboards and 2 mice. Now I can't really imagine doing this without at least one wireless set - untangling the single mouse and keyboard cord pair once a day is acceptable. Getting through 4 wires to move your keyboard isn't. And no, I hate keyboard/mouse switches. Way too unreliable.
Re:Where to get a three-butten mouse with no rolle
on
Top Mice Compared
·
· Score: 1
In bargain bins, in discount stores etc. Just next to 2-button mice. They are considered "a notch above the cheapest of the cheapest" and you find them among those, e.g. $3 chineese mice. It will be hard to find a new high-end 3-button mouse though. You can look for used ones though.
It's even funnier if the company changes the name but the customers insist on using the old one, and do so on regular basis. If you're ever in Poland and asking for direction, if they say "turn left past the CPN", look for Orlen gas station. I bet this drives the managers mad, also strangers find it confusing, but locals will find it a silly "marketing speak" if you refer to "old, good" by their new names.
Likewise, a solar sail isn't like a nautical sail. Once the momentum has been imparted, you need to apply energy to SLOW it down. On a sailboat, when the wind stops, the friction with the water slows you down. In interstellar space, when you don't have any solar 'wind' to power you, you just keep going... except you need to discard the sail, or it would create the "friction" against particles that have already slowed down:)
I wouldn't be so hostile towards "subsonic", it's about speed, not about sound itself.
but doesn't Voyager do so as well? Is it subsonic by now too? It's rather impossible it had its engines on all the time (or even most of the time) or that it moved faster than Solar Wind at any time. Same laws of physics should apply I think?
Another question, "solar sail" related - it seems it's the distance where any Solar Sail based starship would slow down to subsonic speeds - and it would stop by heliopause?
/cygdrive/d/home>units You have: 100 au You want: light years
* 0.0015812845
/ 632.39726 You have: 0.0015812845 years * 2/* there and back */ You want: hours
* 27.722488
/ 0.036071799
Nope. Searching "sith" brought up quite a few 600+MB files in search, but they all were fakes - some spanish porn, a blank file full of zeros, Episode I and such. No, there was no Episode III online, even if it looked like this. You might feel relief that by "resisting the temptation" you just saved some hours of your life you'd have wasted on sorting out fakes.
the people that pirate movies might not have the money or the means to begin with
The sheer selfishness of that attitude amazes me.
The sheer selfishness of THE OPPOSITE attitude amazes me. That is: I distribute a nice song. You, for some reason, can't buy it. By giving it away to you, I'd lose nothing (you wouldn't buy it anyway), you'd gain a nice song. By not giving it to you I gain nothing, you gain nothing.
I think I'm relatively sane. And I want to watch the downloaded version. I'm no biggie Star Wars fan. I actually watched episodes 5 and 6 maybe 3 years ago (at age of about 25). I wasn't all that impressed. 4 was okay. 1 sucked, definitely a movie for little kids. 2 was so boring that I watched it once and never returned. Cinema is expensive here, and I just don't believe the movie is worth the kind of money they are asking for. At half the price, why not? But you can bargain about ticket prices. So, sorry - instead of getting half the money you want, you'll get none from me, Lucas. I might buy DVD if I -really- love the movie. But I wouldn't count on it.
It's hard not to address people in discussion, when people are its target. So let me support my unsupportable, off-the-wall attacks by citing parts from an older discussion I have archived. It was a discussion about a critical article about hunters. A girl wrote...
My father is a hunter for 35 years. Fully-featured activist. They always drink till they fall on these hunts. I got to know about a hundred hunters in my life. Unfortunately they are mostly simpletons. They may be directors and managers in their private life. When it comes to shoting, they are total cretins and brutes.
Replies:
Fucked up father, certainly difficult childhood. Enough to fume like this.
----
Fuck you! Your opinion worth as much as a cunt hair!
----
The accident that your father was a hunter is some kind of omission. If I was in his hunter group, I'd f*** throw him out. And as a drunkard, you see what kind of daughter he has. What can one do, drinking so much? Why would your mother tollerate that? Suspicious bunch, that family of yours."
----
You bitch ... .... you bitch
I didn't get to archive discussions where I was getting personal life threats unfortunately... but I found it really scary that of such people who lose their temper so easily, all have guns.
It is as great a crime to send our boys in defenseless, ill-equipped, and without backup to die as it is to subjugate and persecute the enemy.
As for me, it's greater crime to bomb "suspect" objects that only after being bombed are shown to be shelters full of civillians, hospitals, schools etc. Shoot first, let God sort them out later. Somehow the idea of minimizing civillian losses has been lost, now you minimize chances of your losses at cost of civilians. Life of people who get paid to risk their life and risk it willingly, is kept in much higher regard than life of people who just happen to be there, unable to run.
AFAIK the "convince two people" system was found too unreliable (too many people refused to launch during drills - simulations) and was all replaced with electronics. Most probably it's a physically separate network and so you'd not only need the codes and addresses but you'd also have to build a physical backdoor/gateway to get on the system from "outside", but it's impossible to physically secure thousands of miles of communication wires, so probably the hardest part would be obtaining the launch codes. The rockets probably have a separate self-destruction mechanisms, so you'd have to act really quick, launch at really nearby targets, eventually detonate on-site.
What I'm more interested in, is, how many of them are already planted thorough major cities of the US, sealed under a layer of concrete in basements of skyscrappers, plugged into phone lines, just waiting for a call and detonation code. Paranoia? But that's very probable. Why smuggle them in during unrest, when all transports are carefully monitored, if you can do so during peace - instead of planting them in the orbit or in bunkers and have them delivered during the last minutes, deliver them now, then just detonate. Cheap, easy, reliable. In case of unrest and risk of having the lines cut off, start "dead hand" trigger - call in once a day with unique code to -prevent- detonation.
Think about it - every phone booth can be your military headquarters from which you can destroy whole country. And sure, they can detect the origin of the radioactives. Say, Soviet Union, some of the lost warheads. Or one of reactors in the US.
> No it will not. This CANNOT be fixed. It has nothing to do with privilege escalation, and everything to do with information "leakage" from observable effects. Intel can no more change these observable effects than they can make a CPU that can't be instrumented with performance counters.
And a man will walk on moon sooner than I get laid, right? Add a "secure" flag any thread can set, so it can just perform all the operations without using cache. Or add some kind of "cache malloc" so it gets exclusive privledges to a group of cache pages and they get wiped upon freeing them. Protecting a thread from being measured by performance counters is no more difficult than protecting area of memory from being accessed without being allocated first. And a higher security process may be pre-empted by a lower-security one freely, it just needs to have its resources separated. Say, a thread marks itself as secure - then its cache pages won't be checked against other processes and will always generate a "miss" - even if normally they would generate a "hit". Performance slightly drops, but sensitive data is secured. With no "secure threads" running, no performance impact at all. The fix in software could do about the same, except performance drop would be significantly higher.
Actually, my bet is it will be fixed in the new CPU revision, by Intel. And eventually Kernel fix dug into the config somewhere next to other "bugfix/support" entries, with note like "Early multithreading Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have a vulnerablity that allows to override privledges of a process. This entry includes a patch for this bug at cost of increasing the kernel size by 32K and slightly slowing it down. If you have an early Pentium 4 processor and run a multi-user system, say Y. If you don't or aren't sure, say N."
The solution is better regulation, not banning hunting.
Especially helpful if the president of the local hunting group is the judge who reviews your case, the guilty was a manager who is his friend, an army officer, and a bunch of their friends on high positions will witness against you. The problem is usually hunters are influential/rich people, and they know really well how to protect themselves from prosecution. Regulations? But he shot that horse himself, and now wants to claim damages! We all saw Johnny was in different part of the forest, didn't we? (and shut up, you sonuvabitch if you don't want the rest of your horses shot). That's how your regulations look in practice. People, who kill for pleasure find it easy to lie for profit.
One, you have failed to provide any alternative mechanism for maintaining populations. Hunting+predators, maintaining populations at self-sustainable levels, near the point of ballance of the predator-prey curve. Hunting as a REAL regulatory service, not entertainment. I thought I had stated this clearly? Two, you have failed to provide any believable scenario in which the current approach fails. Any believable to YOU. Just as lung cancer is not a believable solution to smokers, and crashing is not a believable senario for drunk drivers.
Perhaps we should stop using computers because they may someday cease to function? Perhaps you know of companies that went bankrupt because they replaced their paper-based systems with computers, destroyed paper backups and then lost all their data in computer crash due to some critical error in design of their infrastructure? Everything done in a reasonable way is okay. But hunting is NOT done in a reasonable way.
Here in Utah, the predators have been killed off to protect livestock not game. At least some of them, by hunters. So they took a part in the process of killing them off. Not singlehandedly, but they did. What about other places than Utah? There are many places on Earth where certain native species of predators can be found only in zoogardens, thanks to hunts. Wolves have been brought to threshold of extinction, or just killed off in many countries - by hunting. Several species of tigers are on threshold of extinction. England, the great house of most noble world's hunters have been nearly wiped off predators, except of a small population of foxes. If the claim was "Hunters in Utah don't sindehandedly kill off predators", then it would be okay. But otherwise, "hunters don't kill off predators" it's at best a half-truth, and a half-truth is a whole lie. Of course "accidentially killing off whole species" is one of more shady regions in hunting, so hunters will do everything they can to deny it, or blame it on something/someone else.
"You might think that ceasing all hunting would allow the population to rebound faster, but the hunting feeds much-needed dollars into various conservation efforts, such as building road crossings for the animals." Argument always brought up by hunters. That falls directly under bragging, and hipocrisy when (as usually) presented in the light of "noble support to the environment" while the whole funding is obligatory fee forced upon hunters.
"hunting is crucial to the maintenance of healthy herds." Predators are crucial to maintenance of HEALTHY herds. Hunter, when facing a choice between a big rack, and a weak, sick specimen, will pick the obvious. Predator will pick the opposite obvious. Hunters suck at maintaining healthy herds.
"(more hunting)." - many more "special" hunts - general hunt has been scaled back
As for me, it would mean less hunting total. Scaling down the "entertainment" zone, extending the "regulatory" zone. Seems reasonable but definitely net total must be that less animals are shot if the population is to grow - so less hunting (unless you count shoting deers with a paintball gun as hunting). Plus your original argument wa
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for nice explaination.
It's dumb to buy batteries for wireless mice. You buy accumulators and a charger. One pair. Plus one pair of decent quality batteries for use when the accumulators are charging, if you don't want to spend money on another pair of accumulators. The 2 NiMH 600mAh AAA and 2 standard Duracell AAA serve me for about 2 years by now, require the replacement-charging cycle about twice a month.
Epecially in unix/X where the middle button is used a lot, it's annoying that it has a different feel from the other buttons.
You should look for mice that have it separate from the wheel then. I love mice with "middle" button under your thumb (on the side of the mouse). This way there's no moving the fingers to reach any of the three buttons, no problem of accidential scrolling when clicking it, and the wheel doesn't get in the way.
I agree the monitor is a top priority. I find it ridiculous to buy a revolutionary super-duper gfx card by saving money by buying a crappy 15" monitor for it.
..to see???
Tell me -- Mister Anderson...what good is a graphics card if you are unable
A fuckin cord is a good thing. 2 fuckin cords is not-so-good thing. 4 fuckin cords are a major pain in the ass, especially if you like to put the keyboard on your knees for typing. I multitask on 2 PCs on regular basis (one textmode for IRC, mail, textmode www (i.e. game guides), taking notes, one for gfx WWW, games and all the stuff that requires gfx), with 2 keyboards and 2 mice. Now I can't really imagine doing this without at least one wireless set - untangling the single mouse and keyboard cord pair once a day is acceptable. Getting through 4 wires to move your keyboard isn't.
And no, I hate keyboard/mouse switches. Way too unreliable.
In bargain bins, in discount stores etc. Just next to 2-button mice. They are considered "a notch above the cheapest of the cheapest" and you find them among those, e.g. $3 chineese mice. It will be hard to find a new high-end 3-button mouse though. You can look for used ones though.
It's even funnier if the company changes the name but the customers insist on using the old one, and do so on regular basis. If you're ever in Poland and asking for direction, if they say "turn left past the CPN", look for Orlen gas station. I bet this drives the managers mad, also strangers find it confusing, but locals will find it a silly "marketing speak" if you refer to "old, good" by their new names.
Likewise, a solar sail isn't like a nautical sail. Once the momentum has been imparted, you need to apply energy to SLOW it down. On a sailboat, when the wind stops, the friction with the water slows you down. In interstellar space, when you don't have any solar 'wind' to power you, you just keep going... :)
except you need to discard the sail, or it would create the "friction" against particles that have already slowed down
I wouldn't be so hostile towards "subsonic", it's about speed, not about sound itself.
but doesn't Voyager do so as well? Is it subsonic by now too? It's rather impossible it had its engines on all the time (or even most of the time) or that it moved faster than Solar Wind at any time.
Same laws of physics should apply I think?
Another question, "solar sail" related - it seems it's the distance where any Solar Sail based starship would slow down to subsonic speeds - and it would stop by heliopause?
/cygdrive/d/home>units /* there and back */
You have: 100 au
You want: light years
* 0.0015812845
/ 632.39726
You have: 0.0015812845 years * 2
You want: hours
* 27.722488
/ 0.036071799
if I just felt like it, I would let that person starve and perhaps gain some small amount of amusement from it
That's some twisted sense of morality.
Slashdotted :(
Any mirrors?
Nope.
Searching "sith" brought up quite a few 600+MB files in search, but they all were fakes - some spanish porn, a blank file full of zeros, Episode I and such. No, there was no Episode III online, even if it looked like this. You might feel relief that by "resisting the temptation" you just saved some hours of your life you'd have wasted on sorting out fakes.
Actually, law is legitimate. By definition. (the fact that it is used for murky purposes, and question whether it's 100% moral is a different matter.)
the people that pirate movies might not have the money or the means to begin with
The sheer selfishness of that attitude amazes me.
The sheer selfishness of THE OPPOSITE attitude amazes me. That is: I distribute a nice song. You, for some reason, can't buy it. By giving it away to you, I'd lose nothing (you wouldn't buy it anyway), you'd gain a nice song. By not giving it to you I gain nothing, you gain nothing.
Who is more selfish?
I think I'm relatively sane. And I want to watch the downloaded version. I'm no biggie Star Wars fan. I actually watched episodes 5 and 6 maybe 3 years ago (at age of about 25). I wasn't all that impressed. 4 was okay. 1 sucked, definitely a movie for little kids. 2 was so boring that I watched it once and never returned. Cinema is expensive here, and I just don't believe the movie is worth the kind of money they are asking for. At half the price, why not? But you can bargain about ticket prices. So, sorry - instead of getting half the money you want, you'll get none from me, Lucas. I might buy DVD if I -really- love the movie. But I wouldn't count on it.
It's hard not to address people in discussion, when people are its target. So let me support my unsupportable, off-the-wall attacks by citing parts from an older discussion I have archived. It was a discussion about a critical article about hunters. A girl wrote...
My father is a hunter for 35 years. Fully-featured activist. They always drink till they fall on these hunts. I got to know about a hundred hunters in my life. Unfortunately they are mostly simpletons. They may be directors and managers in their private life. When it comes to shoting, they are total cretins and brutes.
Replies:
Fucked up father, certainly difficult childhood. Enough to fume like this.
----
Fuck you! Your opinion worth as much as a cunt hair!
----
The accident that your father was a hunter is some kind of omission. If I was in his hunter group, I'd f*** throw him out. And as a drunkard, you see what kind of daughter he has. What can one do, drinking so much? Why would your mother tollerate that? Suspicious bunch, that family of yours."
----
You bitch
...
....
you bitch
I didn't get to archive discussions where I was getting personal life threats unfortunately... but I found it really scary that of such people who lose their temper so easily, all have guns.
It is as great a crime to send our boys in defenseless, ill-equipped, and without backup to die as it is to subjugate and persecute the enemy.
As for me, it's greater crime to bomb "suspect" objects that only after being bombed are shown to be shelters full of civillians, hospitals, schools etc. Shoot first, let God sort them out later. Somehow the idea of minimizing civillian losses has been lost, now you minimize chances of your losses at cost of civilians. Life of people who get paid to risk their life and risk it willingly, is kept in much higher regard than life of people who just happen to be there, unable to run.
AFAIK the "convince two people" system was found too unreliable (too many people refused to launch during drills - simulations) and was all replaced with electronics. Most probably it's a physically separate network and so you'd not only need the codes and addresses but you'd also have to build a physical backdoor/gateway to get on the system from "outside", but it's impossible to physically secure thousands of miles of communication wires, so probably the hardest part would be obtaining the launch codes. The rockets probably have a separate self-destruction mechanisms, so you'd have to act really quick, launch at really nearby targets, eventually detonate on-site.
What I'm more interested in, is, how many of them are already planted thorough major cities of the US, sealed under a layer of concrete in basements of skyscrappers, plugged into phone lines, just waiting for a call and detonation code. Paranoia? But that's very probable. Why smuggle them in during unrest, when all transports are carefully monitored, if you can do so during peace - instead of planting them in the orbit or in bunkers and have them delivered during the last minutes, deliver them now, then just detonate. Cheap, easy, reliable. In case of unrest and risk of having the lines cut off, start "dead hand" trigger - call in once a day with unique code to -prevent- detonation.
Think about it - every phone booth can be your military headquarters from which you can destroy whole country. And sure, they can detect the origin of the radioactives. Say, Soviet Union, some of the lost warheads. Or one of reactors in the US.
> No it will not. This CANNOT be fixed. It has nothing to do with privilege escalation, and everything to do with information "leakage" from observable effects. Intel can no more change these observable effects than they can make a CPU that can't be instrumented with performance counters.
And a man will walk on moon sooner than I get laid, right?
Add a "secure" flag any thread can set, so it can just perform all the operations without using cache. Or add some kind of "cache malloc" so it gets exclusive privledges to a group of cache pages and they get wiped upon freeing them. Protecting a thread from being measured by performance counters is no more difficult than protecting area of memory from being accessed without being allocated first. And a higher security process may be pre-empted by a lower-security one freely, it just needs to have its resources separated. Say, a thread marks itself as secure - then its cache pages won't be checked against other processes and will always generate a "miss" - even if normally they would generate a "hit". Performance slightly drops, but sensitive data is secured. With no "secure threads" running, no performance impact at all. The fix in software could do about the same, except performance drop would be significantly higher.
Actually, my bet is it will be fixed in the new CPU revision, by Intel. And eventually Kernel fix dug into the config somewhere next to other "bugfix/support" entries, with note like "Early multithreading Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have a vulnerablity that allows to override privledges of a process. This entry includes a patch for this bug at cost of increasing the kernel size by 32K and slightly slowing it down. If you have an early Pentium 4 processor and run a multi-user system, say Y. If you don't or aren't sure, say N."
The solution is better regulation, not banning hunting.
Especially helpful if the president of the local hunting group is the judge who reviews your case, the guilty was a manager who is his friend, an army officer, and a bunch of their friends on high positions will witness against you. The problem is usually hunters are influential/rich people, and they know really well how to protect themselves from prosecution. Regulations? But he shot that horse himself, and now wants to claim damages! We all saw Johnny was in different part of the forest, didn't we? (and shut up, you sonuvabitch if you don't want the rest of your horses shot). That's how your regulations look in practice.
People, who kill for pleasure find it easy to lie for profit.
One, you have failed to provide any alternative mechanism for maintaining populations.
Hunting+predators, maintaining populations at self-sustainable levels, near the point of ballance of the predator-prey curve. Hunting as a REAL regulatory service, not entertainment. I thought I had stated this clearly?
Two, you have failed to provide any believable scenario in which the current approach fails.
Any believable to YOU. Just as lung cancer is not a believable solution to smokers, and crashing is not a believable senario for drunk drivers.
Perhaps we should stop using computers because they may someday cease to function?
Perhaps you know of companies that went bankrupt because they replaced their paper-based systems with computers, destroyed paper backups and then lost all their data in computer crash due to some critical error in design of their infrastructure?
Everything done in a reasonable way is okay. But hunting is NOT done in a reasonable way.
Here in Utah, the predators have been killed off to protect livestock not game.
At least some of them, by hunters. So they took a part in the process of killing them off. Not singlehandedly, but they did. What about other places than Utah? There are many places on Earth where certain native species of predators can be found only in zoogardens, thanks to hunts. Wolves have been brought to threshold of extinction, or just killed off in many countries - by hunting. Several species of tigers are on threshold of extinction. England, the great house of most noble world's hunters have been nearly wiped off predators, except of a small population of foxes.
If the claim was "Hunters in Utah don't sindehandedly kill off predators", then it would be okay. But otherwise, "hunters don't kill off predators" it's at best a half-truth, and a half-truth is a whole lie.
Of course "accidentially killing off whole species" is one of more shady regions in hunting, so hunters will do everything they can to deny it, or blame it on something/someone else.
"You might think that ceasing all hunting would allow the population to rebound faster, but the hunting feeds much-needed dollars into various conservation efforts, such as building road crossings for the animals."
Argument always brought up by hunters. That falls directly under bragging, and hipocrisy when (as usually) presented in the light of "noble support to the environment" while the whole funding is obligatory fee forced upon hunters.
"hunting is crucial to the maintenance of healthy herds."
Predators are crucial to maintenance of HEALTHY herds. Hunter, when facing a choice between a big rack, and a weak, sick specimen, will pick the obvious. Predator will pick the opposite obvious. Hunters suck at maintaining healthy herds.
"(more hunting)."
- many more "special" hunts
- general hunt has been scaled back
As for me, it would mean less hunting total. Scaling down the "entertainment" zone, extending the "regulatory" zone. Seems reasonable but definitely net total must be that less animals are shot if the population is to grow - so less hunting (unless you count shoting deers with a paintball gun as hunting).
Plus your original argument wa
Now waiting for nanotubes produced at that rate. Most likely such diamonds will be common by-products of failures at production of nanotubes...
Because they were developed in UK, not US, the land of Freedom.