Wait...so to have the FSF badge, which most people won't care about, you have to give up the "Made for Mac" / "Works with Windows" badges that people actually DO care about?
That doesn't seem like a smart business decision to me.
My point stands. It is a cable type, and you cannot rule out high/low voltage simply because the most common use for it that consumers run across is low voltage. The cable can handle more, and you could conceivably run across it in a situation where carelessness might be painful or lethal.
coax is a cable type, and depending on the exact variety, a multi-KV rating isn't uncommon.
Now, your cable-tv / internet provider isn't likely to be running those kinds of voltages, but you can't rule it out just because it happens to be a coaxial cable.
Need 2 cars? No. I'm still only one person, and we still can't be in more than one place at a time. More miles? Not really, and they tend to be easier miles with less start & stop traffic.
Pay less in taxes? Yes. Still cover all the normal things, like garbage pickup.
Food more expensive? No. We have things called farmers markets and co-ops. Veggies, meats, dairy, and some fruits straight from the farm. Cheap and fresh. The supermarket in town isn't any more expensive, than supermarkets anywhere else.
Schools sucking? Not really. Smaller class sizes, less bureaucracy. Where you went to K-12 doesn't really matter much for your "top 10% of earners"; as long as you can pass the standardized tests and pay for it, you can still go to most any college you want.
Starbucks? There's one about 20 minutes away, but I'd consider that to be "mass produced crap" Whole Foods? Again, one about 45 minutes away, but why would I bother when I can get fresher and better quality foods right off the farm?
There's plenty to do when you're not working, it's just DIFFERENT things to do.
Internet access? I still have my choice of cable or dsl; no worse of a choice than the closest city.
Crappy medical care? Not really. Doctors here are knowledgeable enough, and the city 30 minutes away has a dozen or so hospitals to choose from -- everything from really shitty inner city hospitals that are constantly on the verge of being shut down due to nasty conditions, to a children's hospital serving several states, to a couple of different research hospitals associated with universities with pretty good medical programs.
I'll take my boonies over your city any day of the week, and twice on days that end in 'y'.
You do realize that "best" is not synonymous with "perfect" right? And that what you value in a place to live isn't the same as what everyone else values?
Is the USA perfect? Hell no. Would I want to live anywhere else? Not really -- everywhere else that I'd even consider has more tradeoffs than I'd like.
Just for shits and giggles, have you bothered to actually look at the FCC ULS (Universal Licensing System) database? Or are you talking out of your ass? I know, stupid question since you're posting AC.
They make large chunks of it freely available, and it isn't small (several hundred MB). They even provide a rather convenient set of SQL scripts to set up the required tables in your DB and import the data. License holders have street addresses. Towers have lat/long coordinates. Both of which are a hell of a lot more precise than "a few kilometers".
What have they lost? First impressions and all that.
I'd seen them mentioned in/. threads, but had not gotten around to looking at the site. Now they've pissed away the good references with a stupid PR stunt.
Box office $$ doesn't mean quality, it means successful. The two are not the same.
A quality movie for me has a good story that is well told. Period. Avatar has great graphics, but the story sucked. So for me, it wasn't a good movie, no room for discussion. Others define quality differently, perhaps with an emphasis entirely on graphics, and for them it was not just a great movie, but a brilliant movie.
The various twilight movies were also very successful at the box office -- does that mean they were quality movies? Or were they tripe made entirely to market towards teenaged girls?
How about various film-festival movies? Those often are held in high esteem by those that value the "art" of movies, but very very few of them would be successful in a nationwide theatre release. Does that mean they're bad?
I'm not even slightly jealous about James Cameron's success -- I'm happy for him that it's allowing him to pursue his love of the deep sea, but I don't think he's a particularly good director, because he doesn't seem to be able to tell stories well.
Well, about the only way I'll ever own a blu-ray player is when the off-brand cheapies are down to $20 or so (yes, it's a vastly superior picture but the improvement over DVD simply isn't worth spending my money on; obviously your opinion may be different). So if hollywood ever wants me to buy blu-ray versions of movies, they better hope that happens sooner rather than later, because it won't be too much longer before someone comes out with yet another disc/chip/hologram/whatever format, or we do away with physical media altogether. Oh, and producing better movies would help. A lot.
Of course, I can count the number of movies I've seen in a theater in the last 2 years on one hand and have fingers leftover (Watchmen and Star Trek, if anyone cares, and I don't think I'll be adding either of them to my DVD shelf), and the TV I watch is pretty much just Formula 1 and WRC coverage, so I'll concede that I'm not the target market for blu-ray, and never will be.
Schools need to dump competitive sports and focus on education. Period.
Here's the way things actually work regarding candy, soda, sports, water, and video games. The people playing video games aren't drinking water, and aren't playing those video games at school (usually). The people playing sports generally aren't the ones pigging out on candy and soda ("sports drinks" and "energy drinks" instead, which I'll grant are pretty much as bad).
So what you really have is "Playing sports and cooling off with water afterward" vs "candy and soda at school followed by MORE candy and soda at home on the couch playing video games", and your question about which is healthier falls apart because of some very bad basic assumptions.
Yeah, I've acknowledged that several times. My comment was based on the original BBC article, which has since been corrected. You'd think you people could read.
You'd also think that after 10+ years that/. would come up with a method to let you edit your comments.
You know, if you'd read the other comment saying the same thing you felt the need to post, and my response acknowledging that I was wrong, all posted right there for you to read before you posted anything...
But no, you couldn't be bothered to read. You had to try to show how much better you were. Congratulations. You were right.
I'm not calling those who point out my errors smug. I'll happily admit I was wrong, and did above, without playing "victim". I was calling you smug because you can't be bothered to read, and have to pile on after I've already said I was wrong. Perhaps smug was the wrong word. Asshole fits you better.
But hey, enjoy being right, however you decide to display it.
Yeah, I already corrected it. The original BBC report said 2500, they've since changed it. But since we can't edit slashdot comments, you go right ahead and enjoy being smug.
And some people have a really weird problem with reading comprehension. I said nothing about bricking phones, and I don't think they'd do it simply because the PR would be more than they'd want to deal with.
I simply think that using location as a basis for determining that it might be stolen is a stupid thing to do.
moving at least a predetermined distance away from a synced device.
I sync with my desktop. Even if they were to know exactly where that was (and since it happens to be located at my mailing address, which they have, I assume they do), so what? I take my phone with me when I travel. How the hell can you tell that my phone was stolen just because it happens to drop off the grid for a day while I fly to, say, Germany? And then drop off the grid a few days later only to reappear at Schipol airport in Amsterdam for a couple days thanks to a volcano, and then zip across Europe to Madrid before disappearing yet again for the better part of a day and reappearing back in the states?
This seems like a rather useless metric for determining if a device is being used by an "unauthorized user".
Slashdot Mirror
Wait...so to have the FSF badge, which most people won't care about, you have to give up the "Made for Mac" / "Works with Windows" badges that people actually DO care about?
That doesn't seem like a smart business decision to me.
Ok. So a 3KV rating. http://www.hyperline.com/catalog/cable/rg6.shtml
My point stands. It is a cable type, and you cannot rule out high/low voltage simply because the most common use for it that consumers run across is low voltage. The cable can handle more, and you could conceivably run across it in a situation where carelessness might be painful or lethal.
Not a chance, coax is low voltage.
coax is a cable type, and depending on the exact variety, a multi-KV rating isn't uncommon.
Now, your cable-tv / internet provider isn't likely to be running those kinds of voltages, but you can't rule it out just because it happens to be a coaxial cable.
Need 2 cars? No. I'm still only one person, and we still can't be in more than one place at a time. More miles? Not really, and they tend to be easier miles with less start & stop traffic.
Pay less in taxes? Yes. Still cover all the normal things, like garbage pickup.
Food more expensive? No. We have things called farmers markets and co-ops. Veggies, meats, dairy, and some fruits straight from the farm. Cheap and fresh. The supermarket in town isn't any more expensive, than supermarkets anywhere else.
Schools sucking? Not really. Smaller class sizes, less bureaucracy. Where you went to K-12 doesn't really matter much for your "top 10% of earners"; as long as you can pass the standardized tests and pay for it, you can still go to most any college you want.
Starbucks? There's one about 20 minutes away, but I'd consider that to be "mass produced crap"
Whole Foods? Again, one about 45 minutes away, but why would I bother when I can get fresher and better quality foods right off the farm?
There's plenty to do when you're not working, it's just DIFFERENT things to do.
Internet access? I still have my choice of cable or dsl; no worse of a choice than the closest city.
Crappy medical care? Not really. Doctors here are knowledgeable enough, and the city 30 minutes away has a dozen or so hospitals to choose from -- everything from really shitty inner city hospitals that are constantly on the verge of being shut down due to nasty conditions, to a children's hospital serving several states, to a couple of different research hospitals associated with universities with pretty good medical programs.
I'll take my boonies over your city any day of the week, and twice on days that end in 'y'.
Chicken.
You do realize that "best" is not synonymous with "perfect" right? And that what you value in a place to live isn't the same as what everyone else values?
Is the USA perfect? Hell no. Would I want to live anywhere else? Not really -- everywhere else that I'd even consider has more tradeoffs than I'd like.
Just for shits and giggles, have you bothered to actually look at the FCC ULS (Universal Licensing System) database? Or are you talking out of your ass? I know, stupid question since you're posting AC.
They make large chunks of it freely available, and it isn't small (several hundred MB). They even provide a rather convenient set of SQL scripts to set up the required tables in your DB and import the data. License holders have street addresses. Towers have lat/long coordinates. Both of which are a hell of a lot more precise than "a few kilometers".
What have they lost?
First impressions and all that.
I'd seen them mentioned in /. threads, but had not gotten around to looking at the site. Now they've pissed away the good references with a stupid PR stunt.
Box office $$ doesn't mean quality, it means successful. The two are not the same.
A quality movie for me has a good story that is well told. Period. Avatar has great graphics, but the story sucked. So for me, it wasn't a good movie, no room for discussion. Others define quality differently, perhaps with an emphasis entirely on graphics, and for them it was not just a great movie, but a brilliant movie.
The various twilight movies were also very successful at the box office -- does that mean they were quality movies? Or were they tripe made entirely to market towards teenaged girls?
How about various film-festival movies? Those often are held in high esteem by those that value the "art" of movies, but very very few of them would be successful in a nationwide theatre release. Does that mean they're bad?
12 Angry Men is a great movie, and a complete box office disappointment. Details with links at wikipedia
I'm not even slightly jealous about James Cameron's success -- I'm happy for him that it's allowing him to pursue his love of the deep sea, but I don't think he's a particularly good director, because he doesn't seem to be able to tell stories well.
Well, about the only way I'll ever own a blu-ray player is when the off-brand cheapies are down to $20 or so (yes, it's a vastly superior picture but the improvement over DVD simply isn't worth spending my money on; obviously your opinion may be different). So if hollywood ever wants me to buy blu-ray versions of movies, they better hope that happens sooner rather than later, because it won't be too much longer before someone comes out with yet another disc/chip/hologram/whatever format, or we do away with physical media altogether. Oh, and producing better movies would help. A lot.
Of course, I can count the number of movies I've seen in a theater in the last 2 years on one hand and have fingers leftover (Watchmen and Star Trek, if anyone cares, and I don't think I'll be adding either of them to my DVD shelf), and the TV I watch is pretty much just Formula 1 and WRC coverage, so I'll concede that I'm not the target market for blu-ray, and never will be.
I'd really like to try some now to see if rectangular pizza was really as good as we all remember it.
Schools need to dump competitive sports and focus on education. Period.
Here's the way things actually work regarding candy, soda, sports, water, and video games. The people playing video games aren't drinking water, and aren't playing those video games at school (usually). The people playing sports generally aren't the ones pigging out on candy and soda ("sports drinks" and "energy drinks" instead, which I'll grant are pretty much as bad).
So what you really have is "Playing sports and cooling off with water afterward" vs "candy and soda at school followed by MORE candy and soda at home on the couch playing video games", and your question about which is healthier falls apart because of some very bad basic assumptions.
Heretics, obviously.
Yeah, I've acknowledged that several times. My comment was based on the original BBC article, which has since been corrected. You'd think you people could read.
You'd also think that after 10+ years that /. would come up with a method to let you edit your comments.
You know, if you'd read the other comment saying the same thing you felt the need to post, and my response acknowledging that I was wrong, all posted right there for you to read before you posted anything...
But no, you couldn't be bothered to read. You had to try to show how much better you were. Congratulations. You were right.
I'm not calling those who point out my errors smug. I'll happily admit I was wrong, and did above, without playing "victim". I was calling you smug because you can't be bothered to read, and have to pile on after I've already said I was wrong. Perhaps smug was the wrong word. Asshole fits you better.
But hey, enjoy being right, however you decide to display it.
They don't say 2500 anymore.
Yeah, I already corrected it. The original BBC report said 2500, they've since changed it. But since we can't edit slashdot comments, you go right ahead and enjoy being smug.
The BBC was originally saying 2500 ft. Now they're saying 300. Shrug. I don't give a rats behind one way or another.
BBC was saying 2500 ft of water.
I don't know (and don't really care) where the arbitrary line is that defines "deep water", but this rig is supposedly in 2500 feet of water.
At least apple has this part right, for now.
You do realize that AM stations, by virtue of being much further down the RF spectrum, have a much, much bigger range, right?
And some people have a really weird problem with reading comprehension. I said nothing about bricking phones, and I don't think they'd do it simply because the PR would be more than they'd want to deal with.
I simply think that using location as a basis for determining that it might be stolen is a stupid thing to do.
moving at least a predetermined distance away from a synced device.
I sync with my desktop. Even if they were to know exactly where that was (and since it happens to be located at my mailing address, which they have, I assume they do), so what? I take my phone with me when I travel. How the hell can you tell that my phone was stolen just because it happens to drop off the grid for a day while I fly to, say, Germany? And then drop off the grid a few days later only to reappear at Schipol airport in Amsterdam for a couple days thanks to a volcano, and then zip across Europe to Madrid before disappearing yet again for the better part of a day and reappearing back in the states?
This seems like a rather useless metric for determining if a device is being used by an "unauthorized user".
That depends on the state.