So often when an idea comes around, one player emerges as disproportionately successful, and in that early charge it's very difficult to achieve competitive diversity.
That sounds similar to the way in which Netscape Navigator was the clear leader in the web browser market until a less expensive alternative was developed.
Seriously, if you're going to devote that kind of hardware to a restoration, why can't you be bothered to pay a guy to airbrush the lightsabers in rather than use the blurred crap that was the result of the cleanup? The lightsabers (in order to look good onscreen) need a white core with a coloured edge.
Because just like the Macs themselves, it doesn't matter what's at the core as long as the outside is pretty.
Thanks for the horribly enlightening English lesson.
By committing the fallacy of exclusion you have come up with what seems to be a inductively weak argument. You might want to try again with some better facts on your side...
Nice try. If you would take the time to read my post, I'm sure you will see that I was merely restating the point of the parent poster. Neither did I "come up with" the "weak argument", nor did I conceive of said facts.
And let me guess, you're using that highly secure OS known as Windows...?
I use both Windows and Linux, and guess what?
1) I keep Windows up to date with security fixes, I have a virus scanner installed, and I don't do idiotic things like opening every email attachment I see. No problems.
2) I have to update Linux just as frequently. New security holes are often found in quite a few Linux applications.
3) Jobs is not the Messiah. He's simply a man who's swindled people into paying more money for less hardware by making his machines slightly more aesthetically pleasing than a square, beige box.
It really is amazing how you could string so many distinct words together and still manage to come up with blind, Mac-loving rhetoric. The point of the original poster was that if there were viruses in previous versions, it is quite likely that there will be viruses in subsequent versions. It's called deductive reasoning - try it sometime, troll.
On a side-note, it's absolutely hilarious how rabid Mac-users are about their little toys. It just goes to show you that you can throw a shiny, colorful veneer on just about any piece of junk and still convince the braindead masses that it's the best thing since frontal lobotomies.
"Terrorism" seems a rather unlikely occupation for all of the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed since the US invasion, and no matter what you want to call them, they are in fact people who would be living now if it weren't for our "brave" troops. How is decimating the population of a mostly harmless country at all justifiable when the intent is to save (American) lives? Bush has his trophy, now leave them alone.
The beheadings are a relatively recent trend that are largely conducted by one so-called terrorist and his cohorts. Whether justified or not, it's the only way they know to get their point across (they're basically powerless otherwise), and it's disturbing that we still refuse to listen. If they want the US to leave them alone, I say fine, pull out and never look back. But, that wouldn't mesh well with El Presidente's plans.
We are protecting the citizens from terrorists that live amongst them.
Exactly, and if we can barely do it there, why are we to believe that we'll stand a better chance in our "homeland"? One of the (many) reasons I think Bush and Co. are evil jackasses is that it's virtually impossible to squelch "terrorism" since there really is no way to tell who your enemy is before you get attacked. The US will have to turn into a totalitarian, isolationist police-state before we are truly safe from terrorism - and then won't that be ironic?
Get a book on basic physics, then explain again how the blades created enough lift to set anytype of working lawnmower airborne.
Perhaps the force of the blades hitting the stump was enough to throw the lawnmower into the air. That's what I got from it anyway. Although, I think his story is in fact bullshit.
Australia isn't so. We're effectively a desert continent with green patches around the outside.
The importance of water recycling can't be overstated.
Is it not possible to purify seawater? Simple distillation would seem sufficient. Given that, I don't exactly see the advantage to recycling wastewater.
I don't think it's too much to ask that when people get behind the wheel of a vehicle, they show at least some small portion of respect and concern for the safety of others by driving responsibly. What you are suggesting is anarchy, and I have to take issue with that. In fact, I believe that the people who can't play nice on freeways are the ones that should get off the road, not the ones with a reasonable expectation of survival. Living in a society means that you take more than your own desires into consideration when you decide to do something that might win you a Darwin Award.
The thing is, the decision to eat fatty foods won't endanger anyone but yourself. Unsafe driving actually puts the lives of people other than yourself at risk. Personal freedom is fine as long as you act in a manner that doesn't infringe on the safety of others.
I especially don't want a satellite link/GPS, like OnStar, which gives OnStar more control over my car than me and that makes it relatively easy for the police state to track my every move, and disable my car at their whim. Its kind of like giving up your right to bear arms, you are giving big brother another huge step towards complete control over your life.
It's not so much an issue of control more than it is one safety. If you've driven recently, you should know by now that the freeways are chaos. People are speeding (far over the speed limits), driving erratically (weaving in/out of traffic, tailgating, etc), distracting themselves (cell phones, eating, smoking), and just in general not giving a damn about the safety of those around them (one reason SUV's are so popular: "safety" - meaning you may cream the car you run into, but at least you're safe).
In the year 2000, there were approximately 15,000 murders in the United States. But in that same year, a staggering 42,000 traffic fatalities. Traffic safety is an important issue, and people really don't seem to give it the consideration it deserves. We've already proven over the last >100 years that people cannot be left to their own devices when it comes to operating a vehicle, so why not do something about it? Oh wait, putting limits on our vehicles would clash with our American sense of entitlement. Nevermind, it's my car, my road, my cell phone, and I'll do as I damn well please with any of them.
That's a very interesting and infromative point you raise. Please, allow me to elaborate.
Let's see:
-electronics can be added to the computers already build into vehicles that could detect and log rate of speed over a timeline, not to mention:
--position of the steering wheel
--application of brakes
-Sensors could be added to the underside of the vehicle to determine the number and frequency of lane-changes (perhaps by using the reflective road markers as a reference point).
-And also throw in a few other gadgets to determine acceleration, incline, proximity to other vehicles, and other things I can't think of at the moment.
Finally correlate all data streams according to time, and presto, you have a very good representation of every move your car makes.
why not also check to see if you've had alchohol or smoked weed within the past 24 hours
Absolutely. It would certainly stand to reason that someone who does drugs (perhaps regularly) is more likely to slip and get into a car while intoxicated than someone who never touches the stuff. Why shouldn't any particular factor that could be an indicator of your ability to operate a vehicle safely be considered?
Forcing everyone to follow 'the rules' only leads to dictatorship
Traffic laws are in place with nothing more than safety in mind - you can hardly say they lead to oppressive rule.
Oh, and there is one flaw in your statement: for personal responsibility to work to the advantage of society, people would actually need to take personal responsibility for their actions. I don't know what roads you drive on, but here in SoCal, there is a tremendous lack of responsibility and regard for others. You only need to check the traffic report at ocnow.com to see that there are generally a handful of hit-and-runs every day on our freeways. Unfortunately, the average person is more likely to consider personal benefit rather than responsibility.
Can I get the car to say "Danger Will Robinson, Danger" when Joe Jaywalker croses the street
No, but I think some of the newer SUV's come equipped with an optional "cattle guard" (previously only found on the front of locomotives). Why even stop? It's not like you'll get hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
So often when an idea comes around, one player emerges as disproportionately successful, and in that early charge it's very difficult to achieve competitive diversity.
That sounds similar to the way in which Netscape Navigator was the clear leader in the web browser market until a less expensive alternative was developed.
No matter what I do I can't even figure out from the context what it's supposed to mean. I can't think of any words that it might be a typo of either.
Perhaps he was thinking of reneged?
Seriously, if you're going to devote that kind of hardware to a restoration, why can't you be bothered to pay a guy to airbrush the lightsabers in rather than use the blurred crap that was the result of the cleanup? The lightsabers (in order to look good onscreen) need a white core with a coloured edge.
Because just like the Macs themselves, it doesn't matter what's at the core as long as the outside is pretty.
Thanks for the horribly enlightening English lesson.
By committing the fallacy of exclusion you have come up with what seems to be a inductively weak argument. You might want to try again with some better facts on your side...
Nice try. If you would take the time to read my post, I'm sure you will see that I was merely restating the point of the parent poster. Neither did I "come up with" the "weak argument", nor did I conceive of said facts.
Im still waiting for Virgin Linux....
I'd like to see Virgin Slashdot... you know, rather than Slasdot Virgins.
I'd like to know why the silly little thing still has handlebars....
Anything that gets robots out to the consumer is good - I am still suprised that robots have taken such a lot time to be sellable.
The reason robots are slow to make it out into the public is because previous versions were found to eat old-people's medicine for fuel.
And let me guess, you're using that highly secure OS known as Windows...?
I use both Windows and Linux, and guess what?
1) I keep Windows up to date with security fixes, I have a virus scanner installed, and I don't do idiotic things like opening every email attachment I see. No problems.
2) I have to update Linux just as frequently. New security holes are often found in quite a few Linux applications.
3) Jobs is not the Messiah. He's simply a man who's swindled people into paying more money for less hardware by making his machines slightly more aesthetically pleasing than a square, beige box.
It really is amazing how you could string so many distinct words together and still manage to come up with blind, Mac-loving rhetoric. The point of the original poster was that if there were viruses in previous versions, it is quite likely that there will be viruses in subsequent versions. It's called deductive reasoning - try it sometime, troll.
On a side-note, it's absolutely hilarious how rabid Mac-users are about their little toys. It just goes to show you that you can throw a shiny, colorful veneer on just about any piece of junk and still convince the braindead masses that it's the best thing since frontal lobotomies.
The correct word would be terrorist.
"Terrorism" seems a rather unlikely occupation for all of the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed since the US invasion, and no matter what you want to call them, they are in fact people who would be living now if it weren't for our "brave" troops. How is decimating the population of a mostly harmless country at all justifiable when the intent is to save (American) lives? Bush has his trophy, now leave them alone.
The beheadings are a relatively recent trend that are largely conducted by one so-called terrorist and his cohorts. Whether justified or not, it's the only way they know to get their point across (they're basically powerless otherwise), and it's disturbing that we still refuse to listen. If they want the US to leave them alone, I say fine, pull out and never look back. But, that wouldn't mesh well with El Presidente's plans.
Does anyone now of any estimates?
I have a decent guess:
too many
"People are people so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully."
it's absolutely useless at is occupying a country and dealing with an insurgency
I'm really getting tired of the pro-America buzzwords floating around on the news these days:
Insurgent:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government
That sure seems like an incorrect term to a group of people that are only trying to defend their country against invasion.
We are protecting the citizens from terrorists that live amongst them.
Exactly, and if we can barely do it there, why are we to believe that we'll stand a better chance in our "homeland"? One of the (many) reasons I think Bush and Co. are evil jackasses is that it's virtually impossible to squelch "terrorism" since there really is no way to tell who your enemy is before you get attacked. The US will have to turn into a totalitarian, isolationist police-state before we are truly safe from terrorism - and then won't that be ironic?
Fundamentalists for the most part are neither sane leaders, nor are they from free worlds.
I think you missed the point of the original poster. This is America, and it's our God-given right to do as we please. Go Freedom!
I sure feel a lot safer knowing that thousands of their loved ones are dead. :p
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Get a book on basic physics, then explain again how the blades created enough lift to set anytype of working lawnmower airborne.
Perhaps the force of the blades hitting the stump was enough to throw the lawnmower into the air. That's what I got from it anyway. Although, I think his story is in fact bullshit.
Australia isn't so. We're effectively a desert continent with green patches around the outside.
The importance of water recycling can't be overstated.
Is it not possible to purify seawater? Simple distillation would seem sufficient. Given that, I don't exactly see the advantage to recycling wastewater.
I don't think it's too much to ask that when people get behind the wheel of a vehicle, they show at least some small portion of respect and concern for the safety of others by driving responsibly. What you are suggesting is anarchy, and I have to take issue with that. In fact, I believe that the people who can't play nice on freeways are the ones that should get off the road, not the ones with a reasonable expectation of survival. Living in a society means that you take more than your own desires into consideration when you decide to do something that might win you a Darwin Award.
The thing is, the decision to eat fatty foods won't endanger anyone but yourself. Unsafe driving actually puts the lives of people other than yourself at risk. Personal freedom is fine as long as you act in a manner that doesn't infringe on the safety of others.
I especially don't want a satellite link/GPS, like OnStar, which gives OnStar more control over my car than me and that makes it relatively easy for the police state to track my every move, and disable my car at their whim. Its kind of like giving up your right to bear arms, you are giving big brother another huge step towards complete control over your life.
It's not so much an issue of control more than it is one safety. If you've driven recently, you should know by now that the freeways are chaos. People are speeding (far over the speed limits), driving erratically (weaving in/out of traffic, tailgating, etc), distracting themselves (cell phones, eating, smoking), and just in general not giving a damn about the safety of those around them (one reason SUV's are so popular: "safety" - meaning you may cream the car you run into, but at least you're safe).
In the year 2000, there were approximately 15,000 murders in the United States. But in that same year, a staggering 42,000 traffic fatalities. Traffic safety is an important issue, and people really don't seem to give it the consideration it deserves. We've already proven over the last >100 years that people cannot be left to their own devices when it comes to operating a vehicle, so why not do something about it? Oh wait, putting limits on our vehicles would clash with our American sense of entitlement. Nevermind, it's my car, my road, my cell phone, and I'll do as I damn well please with any of them.
Not that they are making another Superman series, but that they are doing this with the full knowledge of the Superman curse.
Curse be damned:
Teri Hatcher
Kristin Kreuk
Allison Mack
Go on then, what devices are these?
That's a very interesting and infromative point you raise. Please, allow me to elaborate.
Let's see:
-electronics can be added to the computers already build into vehicles that could detect and log rate of speed over a timeline, not to mention:
--position of the steering wheel
--application of brakes
-Sensors could be added to the underside of the vehicle to determine the number and frequency of lane-changes (perhaps by using the reflective road markers as a reference point).
-And also throw in a few other gadgets to determine acceleration, incline, proximity to other vehicles, and other things I can't think of at the moment.
Finally correlate all data streams according to time, and presto, you have a very good representation of every move your car makes.
why not also check to see if you've had alchohol or smoked weed within the past 24 hours
Absolutely. It would certainly stand to reason that someone who does drugs (perhaps regularly) is more likely to slip and get into a car while intoxicated than someone who never touches the stuff. Why shouldn't any particular factor that could be an indicator of your ability to operate a vehicle safely be considered?
Forcing everyone to follow 'the rules' only leads to dictatorship
Traffic laws are in place with nothing more than safety in mind - you can hardly say they lead to oppressive rule.
Oh, and there is one flaw in your statement: for personal responsibility to work to the advantage of society, people would actually need to take personal responsibility for their actions. I don't know what roads you drive on, but here in SoCal, there is a tremendous lack of responsibility and regard for others. You only need to check the traffic report at ocnow.com to see that there are generally a handful of hit-and-runs every day on our freeways. Unfortunately, the average person is more likely to consider personal benefit rather than responsibility.
Can I get the car to say "Danger Will Robinson, Danger" when Joe Jaywalker croses the street
No, but I think some of the newer SUV's come equipped with an optional "cattle guard" (previously only found on the front of locomotives). Why even stop? It's not like you'll get hurt.