Correct. Henry Ford, when "inventing" his automobile (yeah, yeah, I know other people really invented the automobile. Pesky krauts;), he looked at fuels other than gasoline. He settled on gasoline because it was available, abundant, cheap, and -- safer and more stable than most of the other alternatives he considered.
Exactly. Let's just show how ridiculous the parent's argument really is:
Person 1: "Why are we eating at McDonald's again? This food is lukewarm and the service sucks!" Person 2: "Well, why don't you try eating out of a garbage can? McDonald's is MUCH better than eating out of garbage can! See? We're at the best place to eat in the world!".... later...
Person 1: "Well, at Quiznos, they have these toasted subs that are yummy! They cost a little more than McDonald's, but the location down the street has great service, too." Person 2: Indignantly: "Oh, well, if you like Quiznos so much, why don't you just go eat there, then!"
See what I mean, folks? See how ridiculous this sounds? I bet you couldn't stop from laughing. This is the same argument, people. No, it's not different.
Please, please, people: Start thinking for yourselves and stop parroting what people on television, in the media, and in the political arena -- whoall have ulterior motives for saying what they say -- are saying!
Putting all of your eggs in one basket always seemed like a good idea... Oh, I'm sure a massive supercomputer design from a company with the large-scale computing experience of IBM would be far from putting all your eggs in one basket. Have you ever worked on IBM mainframe equipment? This stuff has redundancies up the wazoo -- everything from multiple redundant power paths to multiple redundant CPUs and mainboards. You know how everyone brags about Linux servers have "three 9s" uptime? Screw "three 9s". IBMs large-scale computers have -- for all intents and purposes -- 100% uptime. This is why banks and financial institutions and governments and militaries rely on such machines -- because when you need it to run all the time and never go down, you get a mainframe. IBM's supercomputers are no different in that respect.
Does anyone know how much methamphetamine can be made from a given amount of pseudoephedrine? Since the pseudoephedrine is a base material, not a catalyst, my guess is that the answer is not a lot. That makes me wonder whether it makes sense to restrict the purchase typical consumer quantities of pseudoephedrine. That is, I can see restricting the purchase of wholesale quantities, which might be useful for illegal drug production, but would it really be cost effective for a meth lab to buy a few retail bottles a day? Ah! Someone who actually gets it! belmolis FTW! You said it exactly right. It's not cost effective -- at all -- to produce large quantities of methamphetamine from retail packages of psuedoephedrine.
I deliberately didn't bring this up to see if people would think for themselves. None of them did except you.
But, um, we havehad manned missions to Antarctica. And there are plenty of practical reasons for a manned mission to Mars. Like when you don't know exactly what you're looking for, for instance.
Re:A whole book just for themes?
on
Drupal 5 Themes
·
· Score: 1
I dunno. It took me maybe an hour or two at the most to hack an existing theme into something that looked pretty decent. Including creating the image in the header.
Time-Warner Planning AOL Split Posted by Zonk on Wednesday February 06, @01:09PM from the seems-like-every-year dept. Businesses America Online The Internet Two years ago the word was AOL was planning a split from Time-Warner, because it was so successful. Now Time-Warner is considering a split of its own, deciding whether or not to separate the two 'halves' of the AOL pie [CC]. The split would see its 'access' ISP side made into an entity separate from its 'audience' side, consisting of portals, advertising and blogs. "[Time-Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes] also said [AOL's] 84 percent ownership stake in Time Warner Cable is 'less than optimal' for both companies. He said the two companies are talking about operating improvements and changes to the ownership structure. The chief financial officer, John Martin, said it will take 'several more months' to separate the AOL businesses 'because it's fairly complicated.' The company expects AOL's advertising revenue for the first quarter of 2008 to be 'essentially flat to down slightly' versus the year-earlier quarter, he said."
I'm woried (Score:5, Funny) by 4D6963 (933028) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:27PM (#22323440) Homepage Journal
Is it that AOL is doing bad? Because I haven't received any CDs from them in a while, so I'm getting worried.. -- The ARSE 0.2d2 [sourceforge.net]. Sound -> Image -> New Sound. [ Hide Replies | Reply to This ]
*
*
Re:I'm worried (Score:1, Funny)
by SoupGuru (723634) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:41PM (#22323606)
me too.
--
**What doesn't kill you only prolongs the inevitable
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Me too. > On Wednesday 06, 01:41 PM, SoupGuru said > me too.
it does make perfect business sense to at least spin it off to die on it's own or as a bonus have some sucker buy it. What? But, they told me dialup access was making a strong comeback!
Hmmm...it includes GTK+ and bits of Gnome. GTK+ is a part of Gnome, which in turn, is a part of GNU. And, of course, it uses glibc, which is also a part of GNU.
Oh, I think you can look at my posting record and see that I'm not in favor of government control. I'm just calling out government lies where I see them. The point is, if they're going to lie about this, what else are they going to lie to you about? REAL ID, for sure.
The whole pseudoephedrine thing is not about the meth addicts. Sure, that's the excuse they used, but the real reason for the provision for requiring ID on pseudoephedrine and limiting the quantity for purchase of these drugs in the so-called 'Stop Meth Act' is to prevent people from using them as a sort of 'speed lite'. Teenagers were found to be using them as 'pep' pills and 'smart' pills (because pseudoephedrine is a stimulate that's quite a bit stronger than caffeine) and so the purpose was really to keep people from buying them and using them for that purpose.
You can either buy the party line or examine the evidence yourself: the truth is that purchasing pseudoephedrine-containing drugs in certain combinations, such as with guafenesin, does not require ID and does not have any purchase limit. Making meth from psuedoephededrine+guafenesin is not much more difficult than making it from any other pseudoephedrine-containing drug. However, the pseudoephedrine+guafenesin combination cannot be used as a 'pep' or a 'smart' drug, because the guafenesin will make you sick if you take it in too high of a dose.
This can all be verified with a simple Google search.
Think for yourselves, people. Please. For all that is good in this world, please starting thinking for yourselves.
The Wikipedia page isn't exactly correct, either. Microsoft never told IBM about SCP. Microsoft did recommend CP/M after becoming IBM's language vendor, and when Gary Kildall's wife (who was dealing with IBM because Gary went out flying that day) refused to sign a bunch of typical IBM NDAs, they went back to Microsoft to discuss purchasing an OS from them. Gates said 'sure', and then went out looking for one and found Seattle Computer Products.
No, no. I knew that they bought QDOS from Tim Patterson/Seattle Computer Products for something outrageously cheap (the figure $16,000 comes to mind, but I don't remember the exact amount to tell the truth). And I also knew that Microsoft 'sold' the OS to IBM before they even had one to offer for sale. Plus, they got what were then very favorable contract terms from IBM because IBM mostly didn't care.
I didn't mean to imply that Microsoft 'built' MS-DOS by any stretch of the imagination. They built their monopoly based on that product, though. Microsoft was WELL in control of the industry before they pumped out Windows 3.0.
IBM, despite having lost the OS battle, will win this one. They are the 1600lb gorilla. Their influence in the industry and deep and wide and should never be underestimated. Microsoft would do well not to make an enemy of them. Oh, I think it's much, much too late for that. IBM and Microsoft have been at odds since the whole OS/2 joint development agreement fallout. The only thing nobody seems to notice much around here is that IBM has been winning.
First, libertarians on principle oppose government involvement in monetarist policies, which implies getting rid of the federal reserve and the monetarist policies it administers. This has absolutely nothing to do with government spending, which is fiscal policy handled by Congress. I would imagine Ron Paul's fiscal policy would be some variant of pay as you go, following strong fiscally conservative principles. Getting government out of monetary policy probably isn't a good idea, but having people attempting to muddy the waters by rolling all of the issues together is also a crock of shit. You don't know what you're talking about. The Federal Reserve Bank has nothing to do with government, other than the fact that its chairman is appointed by the President. The Fed is not a government entity: it's owned by private banks. Many of them are even foreign banks. Do a little research before you go spouting off stuff all half-cocked.
When a company that used to be a monopolist is now one of the staunchest defenders of openness, I really do hope there is no hidden agenda here. Of course there's a hidden agenda. Except that it's not so hidden. IBM's business model currently revolves around services, rather than products. It's in IBM's best interests to have a diverse set of vendors in the IT industry to choose from rather than a monopoly and a monoculture. Microsoft is also in the services business, but their services revolve around their specific products, whereas IBM is a vendor that takes a more ecumenical view.
IOW, IBM's 'ulterior' motive is profit, and their profit goals happen to be in alignment with what's best for the IT industry and the greater IT community.
What's the big deal with Ron Paul? And what kind of libertarian votes? Ron Paul isn't running as a Libertarian, he's on the the Republican ticket. That's what the big deal is. Malda is as guilty of media bias Fox News, CNN and all the rest. Congrats, Rob. You've managed to sell out and join the mainstream media. Isn't that something you swore you'd never do when you started Slashdot way back when?
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. Henry Ford, when "inventing" his automobile (yeah, yeah, I know other people really invented the automobile. Pesky krauts ;), he looked at fuels other than gasoline. He settled on gasoline because it was available, abundant, cheap, and -- safer and more stable than most of the other alternatives he considered.
Exactly. Let's just show how ridiculous the parent's argument really is:
.... later ...
Person 1: "Why are we eating at McDonald's again? This food is lukewarm and the service sucks!"
Person 2: "Well, why don't you try eating out of a garbage can? McDonald's is MUCH better than eating out of garbage can! See? We're at the best place to eat in the world!"
Person 1: "Well, at Quiznos, they have these toasted subs that are yummy! They cost a little more than McDonald's, but the location down the street has great service, too."
Person 2: Indignantly: "Oh, well, if you like Quiznos so much, why don't you just go eat there, then!"
See what I mean, folks? See how ridiculous this sounds? I bet you couldn't stop from laughing. This is the same argument, people. No, it's not different.
Please, please, people: Start thinking for yourselves and stop parroting what people on television, in the media, and in the political arena -- whoall have ulterior motives for saying what they say -- are saying!
1!
Please, please, tell me they are not getting their batteries from Sony!
"50 cars caught fire on I-4 today."
I deliberately didn't bring this up to see if people would think for themselves. None of them did except you.
But, um, we have had manned missions to Antarctica. And there are plenty of practical reasons for a manned mission to Mars. Like when you don't know exactly what you're looking for, for instance.
I dunno. It took me maybe an hour or two at the most to hack an existing theme into something that looked pretty decent. Including creating the image in the header.
The Internet is safer than what? Skinny dipping in the Everglades after dark?
Posted by Zonk on Wednesday February 06, @01:09PM
from the seems-like-every-year dept.
Businesses America Online The Internet
Two years ago the word was AOL was planning a split from Time-Warner, because it was so successful. Now Time-Warner is considering a split of its own, deciding whether or not to separate the two 'halves' of the AOL pie [CC]. The split would see its 'access' ISP side made into an entity separate from its 'audience' side, consisting of portals, advertising and blogs. "[Time-Warner chief executive Jeffrey Bewkes] also said [AOL's] 84 percent ownership stake in Time Warner Cable is 'less than optimal' for both companies. He said the two companies are talking about operating improvements and changes to the ownership structure. The chief financial officer, John Martin, said it will take 'several more months' to separate the AOL businesses 'because it's fairly complicated.' The company expects AOL's advertising revenue for the first quarter of 2008 to be 'essentially flat to down slightly' versus the year-earlier quarter, he said."
I'm woried (Score:5, Funny)
by 4D6963 (933028) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:27PM (#22323440) Homepage Journal
Is it that AOL is doing bad? Because I haven't received any CDs from them in a while, so I'm getting worried..
--
The ARSE 0.2d2 [sourceforge.net]. Sound -> Image -> New Sound.
[ Hide Replies | Reply to This ]
*
*
Re:I'm worried (Score:1, Funny)
by SoupGuru (723634) Alter Relationship on Wednesday February 06, @01:41PM (#22323606)
me too.
--
**What doesn't kill you only prolongs the inevitable
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Me too.
> On Wednesday 06, 01:41 PM, SoupGuru said
> me too.
me too! me too!
Yeah, I heard it'll be released right alongside Microsoft Flight Simulator: Porcine Edition.
Well, I guess somebody better tell the OLPC project that they don't include GTK+ or PyGTK so they can fix their wiki.
Hmmm...it includes GTK+ and bits of Gnome. GTK+ is a part of Gnome, which in turn, is a part of GNU. And, of course, it uses glibc, which is also a part of GNU.
Oh, I think you can look at my posting record and see that I'm not in favor of government control. I'm just calling out government lies where I see them. The point is, if they're going to lie about this, what else are they going to lie to you about? REAL ID, for sure.
You can't trust the government.
Perhaps, but I can walk into almost any gas station right now and purchase 'Ephedrine Plus' tablets without showing ID or having any record.
The whole pseudoephedrine thing is not about the meth addicts. Sure, that's the excuse they used, but the real reason for the provision for requiring ID on pseudoephedrine and limiting the quantity for purchase of these drugs in the so-called 'Stop Meth Act' is to prevent people from using them as a sort of 'speed lite'. Teenagers were found to be using them as 'pep' pills and 'smart' pills (because pseudoephedrine is a stimulate that's quite a bit stronger than caffeine) and so the purpose was really to keep people from buying them and using them for that purpose.
You can either buy the party line or examine the evidence yourself: the truth is that purchasing pseudoephedrine-containing drugs in certain combinations, such as with guafenesin, does not require ID and does not have any purchase limit. Making meth from psuedoephededrine+guafenesin is not much more difficult than making it from any other pseudoephedrine-containing drug. However, the pseudoephedrine+guafenesin combination cannot be used as a 'pep' or a 'smart' drug, because the guafenesin will make you sick if you take it in too high of a dose.
This can all be verified with a simple Google search.
Think for yourselves, people. Please. For all that is good in this world, please starting thinking for yourselves.
The Wikipedia page isn't exactly correct, either. Microsoft never told IBM about SCP. Microsoft did recommend CP/M after becoming IBM's language vendor, and when Gary Kildall's wife (who was dealing with IBM because Gary went out flying that day) refused to sign a bunch of typical IBM NDAs, they went back to Microsoft to discuss purchasing an OS from them. Gates said 'sure', and then went out looking for one and found Seattle Computer Products.
My sources include the Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews book Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented and Industry -- And Made Himself the Richest Man in America .
No, no. I knew that they bought QDOS from Tim Patterson/Seattle Computer Products for something outrageously cheap (the figure $16,000 comes to mind, but I don't remember the exact amount to tell the truth). And I also knew that Microsoft 'sold' the OS to IBM before they even had one to offer for sale. Plus, they got what were then very favorable contract terms from IBM because IBM mostly didn't care.
I didn't mean to imply that Microsoft 'built' MS-DOS by any stretch of the imagination. They built their monopoly based on that product, though. Microsoft was WELL in control of the industry before they pumped out Windows 3.0.
IOW, IBM's 'ulterior' motive is profit, and their profit goals happen to be in alignment with what's best for the IT industry and the greater IT community.
I don't think anyone else here detected an ounce of humor.
In Soviet America, Hillary overlords bash YOU!!!