It's PCIe, not PCI-X. PCI-X is a 66MHz, 64 bit PCI bus, whereas PCIe is a whole new architecture that is much faster, and would allow for multiple video cards.
OK, I haven't read much of that yet, but it looks pretty good. I hadn't researched much more into it than a PopSci article, but I should have assumed it would have been biased.:-/
Anyway, I do believe they are capable of developing that technology, and I would readily admit that the Russians made good stuff too (although they used all of those funky green and beige colors, ugh, they need better designers;-) ), but I was under the completely wrong impression about the program. Tbank you, I'm bookmarking that link now.
Oh yes, that is certainly true. I was just pointing out that it's that, "no one helped me, so I'm not going to help you", kind of thing that I was arguing against. As other posters have said, no matter what you do you create a bigger problem in this case, and I pretty much agree. This was more of an argument against a philosophy, that of selfishness by the wealthy(countries), than a practice.:-)
Guess where the Chinese got all of their technology and designs to build those rockets? From the Russians. They didn't develop nearly half of it themselves. And as other people have said, much of the other technology is freely out there.
So, instead of helping others, we should just imitate the countries that don't? While people are starving, you want to keep that little extra pocket change you have so you can buy that extra large slurpee and only drink half of it? Just because a long time ago, no one else helped us? Also America may have once been a third world country, but it rarely ever had issues with starvation, as other countries do now. Can you just sit there while other people starve, just because your predecessors had to work hard? "Hey look, I know you're starving to death, but hey, no one ever gave my great great grandfather any food, so too bad."
And talking about short-sighted, it's short-sighted to not consider the good will that it would create. As world opinion of America plummets, would you rather have stories in the media about how the richest nation in the world was giving food to starving children, or how the richest nation in the world was inadvertently killing thousands if not millions? Hey, every person angry at the U.S. could become a terrorist. If you lost your father because his life wasn't worth a few dollars to the "compassionate" Americans.
While I do not want to give up exploration, defense, or feeding the hungry, I know some cuts will have to be made, but I think that feeding the hungry can help *with* the defense, moreso than buying another 100 tanks (100*3.2 million=$320 million, $320 million/$100=3.2 million people that could be fed instead. The $100 figure is just a guess though)
I just hope everything can be worked out for everyone's benefit in the end.
I'm not sure, but from an incredibly unreliable source(another/. post a long time ago), they have multiple accounts process the same data. If they get different results, they figure out which account is producing false information.
Yeah, that's why it's mentioned *so* many times on/. or anywhere else for that matter. Anyway, I wish we were in charge of the government, but alas, you're all to right about that.
It seems a lot of people have missed one obvious solution:
Put little receipt printers behind little glass screens and print out your pick on that paper. The person can see what was put on that paper, verify that it's right*, and then leave, while the machine drops the slip in a little bucket that can be counted if there is any doubt. There could also be a little barcode or whatever at the top of the paper that is easily read by computer.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than current Diebold junk.
*I don't know what they'd do if it was wrong, but possibly it could remove that slip from the stream of paper receipts and print a new one that is correct.
Hehehehe. I never said it was just about oil, as you point out yourself. I don't know what else it's about, but you haven't given an answer to that either.
Iraq asked us to stay: Do you mean the Iraqi's or the U.S. installed interim government?
Saddam was a cruel, murderous dictator: Why don't we take out the other murderous regimes? The Turkish seem to be a good fit.Oh wait, we've been giving them millions in military aid during the last decade, and we've been trying to get them in the EU. Hardly the same treatment that Saddam received for his similar atrocities.
And, uh, you're use of the word "fact" is not very accurate. They're opinions, or just plain wrong. As I said, it was the interim government, not Iraq (that would imply strong majority support of the populace) that asked us to stay, and it's *your* opinion tht Saddam had to be taken out. So, that whole line there is laughable.
I only assumed you listened to Hannity, O'Rielly or Limbaugh since they are the *main* purveyors of such ridiculous trash as you've been spewing. Hardly hypocritical to make an assumption. I never claimed that you were wrong for making one. Lookup hypocrite.
I just find it odd that even before the war started, we were building an oil pipeline through Kuwait up to Iraq. Don't you find that odd?
Hey, at least you do believe oil played a roll. There's hope for you yet.
Anyway, I'm not irked. I'm laughing at your expense. I find your attempts at logic enjoyably bad, and your "knowledge" of the world so sorely lacking that it is on the verge of hilarity. So, please don't stop.
You're right. Those poor poor crack addicts. All they were doing was breaking the law. Really, why does the government have to be so down on them, man? It's not like laws are important. Just let it go man.
On a sidenote, when was it a crime to preside over drug related trials? With all of this "by her own admission" stuff, you'd think it was.
I'm sorry, but with only your word to back you up, I don't really believe you. If you found some references (I'd google it, but I'm not the one claiming it's a myth) that weren't funded by M$, I'd listen.:-)
Just like Sean Hannity you drew your own conclusions from what I said. I never said it was about one thing. You did. You built a giant strawman. Congratulations, you're a giant hypocrite.
Here's one problem though, if the Iraqi's run their own country, that oil supply has not been secured. They join OPEC, and guess what? That gas price goes up on a whim causing a recession. *One* of the goals of the U.S. has not been accomplished.
Can you understand that, or does all of your information have to be "cleared" for you by the likes of O'Rielly and Limbaugh? Typical idiot, you're incapable of being reasonable and have to resort to personal attacks.
Essentially, your post is a whole lot of well meaning nothing. You have many valid points, but none of them actually address why government funded social programs are wrong, except that the people who create these social programs somehow don't donate enough and if they don't the government shouldn't either. So? Does that mean that the actual program is somehow wrong? Is using tax dollars to fund the programs wrong because maybe some taxpayers would disagree with the program? If that's the case, I think my money shouldn't go to that nuclear submarine. I think that's a waste of my tax dollars as I disagree with their necessity.
While I'm all for not spending taxpayer dollars on inefficient or ineffective programs, be they social, economic, or military programs, I'm absolutely fine if their results justify the cost. But, just because someone might disagree with a program is no reason to not support it.
Note, I do agree that people should provide a lot more donations.:-) And, I think it's really cool that you donate so much, even from your allowance. Double:-)
Fact: Iraq has *oil*.
Fact: U.S. and U.K. economy *requires* oil.
Fact: The U.S. and the U.K. are still *in* Iraq.
Fact: There are no plans for the U.S. and the U.K. to *leave* Iraq.
I don't see what's so confusing.
Wow, that's so brilliant. Who'd really want to keep a place full of sand, people, and that weird black sticky stuff that just shoots out of the ground? I guess you're right after all. It's not a war for the black sticky stuff, it's a war so that we can give back power to the people and then leave them be.
I just wonder why'd he give his secret away? Maybe it's his plan to get thousands of not-so-rich and not-so-experienced people to manipulate the market for his gains?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
It's PCIe, not PCI-X. PCI-X is a 66MHz, 64 bit PCI bus, whereas PCIe is a whole new architecture that is much faster, and would allow for multiple video cards.
Anyway, I do believe they are capable of developing that technology, and I would readily admit that the Russians made good stuff too (although they used all of those funky green and beige colors, ugh, they need better designers ;-) ), but I was under the completely wrong impression about the program. Tbank you, I'm bookmarking that link now.
Yes, but they're using even older technology than the space shuttle. Do you think the Russians sold them their latest stuff?
Oh yes, that is certainly true. I was just pointing out that it's that, "no one helped me, so I'm not going to help you", kind of thing that I was arguing against. As other posters have said, no matter what you do you create a bigger problem in this case, and I pretty much agree. This was more of an argument against a philosophy, that of selfishness by the wealthy(countries), than a practice. :-)
I'd agree to that. But not providing support, just because no one helped us is kind of foolish. :-)
Guess where the Chinese got all of their technology and designs to build those rockets? From the Russians. They didn't develop nearly half of it themselves. And as other people have said, much of the other technology is freely out there.
The manned mission by China was just old Russian technology being reborn. The Chinese didn't change many of the original Russian designs at all.
And talking about short-sighted, it's short-sighted to not consider the good will that it would create. As world opinion of America plummets, would you rather have stories in the media about how the richest nation in the world was giving food to starving children, or how the richest nation in the world was inadvertently killing thousands if not millions? Hey, every person angry at the U.S. could become a terrorist. If you lost your father because his life wasn't worth a few dollars to the "compassionate" Americans.
While I do not want to give up exploration, defense, or feeding the hungry, I know some cuts will have to be made, but I think that feeding the hungry can help *with* the defense, moreso than buying another 100 tanks (100*3.2 million=$320 million, $320 million/$100=3.2 million people that could be fed instead. The $100 figure is just a guess though) I just hope everything can be worked out for everyone's benefit in the end.
Well, ok, but I swear I have never seen anything like that at all. Jeez, I thought I was a geek. :-/
Cya.
I'm not sure, but from an incredibly unreliable source(another /. post a long time ago), they have multiple accounts process the same data. If they get different results, they figure out which account is producing false information.
Yeah, that's why it's mentioned *so* many times on /. or anywhere else for that matter. Anyway, I wish we were in charge of the government, but alas, you're all to right about that.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than current Diebold junk.
*I don't know what they'd do if it was wrong, but possibly it could remove that slip from the stream of paper receipts and print a new one that is correct.
Iraq asked us to stay: Do you mean the Iraqi's or the U.S. installed interim government?
Saddam was a cruel, murderous dictator: Why don't we take out the other murderous regimes? The Turkish seem to be a good fit.Oh wait, we've been giving them millions in military aid during the last decade, and we've been trying to get them in the EU. Hardly the same treatment that Saddam received for his similar atrocities.
And, uh, you're use of the word "fact" is not very accurate. They're opinions, or just plain wrong. As I said, it was the interim government, not Iraq (that would imply strong majority support of the populace) that asked us to stay, and it's *your* opinion tht Saddam had to be taken out. So, that whole line there is laughable.
I only assumed you listened to Hannity, O'Rielly or Limbaugh since they are the *main* purveyors of such ridiculous trash as you've been spewing. Hardly hypocritical to make an assumption. I never claimed that you were wrong for making one. Lookup hypocrite.
I just find it odd that even before the war started, we were building an oil pipeline through Kuwait up to Iraq. Don't you find that odd?
Another oil pipeline, suited for the U.S. More.
Hey, at least you do believe oil played a roll. There's hope for you yet.
Anyway, I'm not irked. I'm laughing at your expense. I find your attempts at logic enjoyably bad, and your "knowledge" of the world so sorely lacking that it is on the verge of hilarity. So, please don't stop.
I wasn't defending her. How you managed to get that is unimaginable.
On a sidenote, when was it a crime to preside over drug related trials? With all of this "by her own admission" stuff, you'd think it was.
I'm sorry, but with only your word to back you up, I don't really believe you. If you found some references (I'd google it, but I'm not the one claiming it's a myth) that weren't funded by M$, I'd listen. :-)
Here's one problem though, if the Iraqi's run their own country, that oil supply has not been secured. They join OPEC, and guess what? That gas price goes up on a whim causing a recession. *One* of the goals of the U.S. has not been accomplished.
Can you understand that, or does all of your information have to be "cleared" for you by the likes of O'Rielly and Limbaugh? Typical idiot, you're incapable of being reasonable and have to resort to personal attacks.
Just helping out.
Then we're just buying them off with money. Catch-22
While I'm all for not spending taxpayer dollars on inefficient or ineffective programs, be they social, economic, or military programs, I'm absolutely fine if their results justify the cost. But, just because someone might disagree with a program is no reason to not support it.
Note, I do agree that people should provide a lot more donations. :-) And, I think it's really cool that you donate so much, even from your allowance. Double :-)
Fact: Iraq has *oil*. Fact: U.S. and U.K. economy *requires* oil. Fact: The U.S. and the U.K. are still *in* Iraq. Fact: There are no plans for the U.S. and the U.K. to *leave* Iraq. I don't see what's so confusing.
Wow, that's so brilliant. Who'd really want to keep a place full of sand, people, and that weird black sticky stuff that just shoots out of the ground? I guess you're right after all. It's not a war for the black sticky stuff, it's a war so that we can give back power to the people and then leave them be.
Certainly, Vira with vira with vira with vira with vira with vira with vira with vira.... with vira with vira with vira.... :-)
A couple months ago there was a thread on what the correct form of viruses in latin. To sum it up, vira was what they decided it to be.
I just wonder why'd he give his secret away? Maybe it's his plan to get thousands of not-so-rich and not-so-experienced people to manipulate the market for his gains? ;-)