I make 2 partitions, one for My Documents and one for my C: drive that will have the Windows partition and the program files and all that good stuff. Then I update Windows and get the latest everything installed. Then I install all my programs. I make all my registry tweaks (I found one that auto-unloads DLL's after you close an application to be incredibly handy, and to keep my XP fresh and fast), install all my drivers, and get everything set up perfectly. Then I create a system restore point, where everything is perfect.
That way, should I ever have a problem, I can just role back to when it all was perfect; or if I should need to reformat, I don't have trouble backing up all my data. Just move all the special folders with configs and save files and anything else important on the C: drive over to the D: partition, reformat and reinstall Windows on the C: partition, and you're good!
I don't run any antivirus besides MS Antispyware Beta, Adaware Personal SE, and Spybot S&D. Haven't had any problems whatsoever for at least 6 months.
Whats with all the flu coverage lately? If we didn't have a vaccine, this wouldn't have even been covered.
I think its silly that people fuss about not being able to get the flu vaccine when 10 years ago they couldn't anyways. I'd tell them to start running or get in shape so that they'd better be able to combat the virus.
I believe my fear is that this will take away some of the reasons why public protesting has not been regulated most of the time...simply because the only real method of regulating it involved causing direct harm to someone. When there is no harm caused, but only discomfort, then there will much less reason to not regulate...hence it could become more difficult to protest without some form of governmental regulation. If we fuss and say they made is go come cause we all were blinded for 20 minutes, everyone else can say "Meh, you're not harmed, I don't care about what you're protesting about, so I'm not going to bother that your rights were infringed."
I'm thinking that when there are fewer repercussions for "regulating" then the government will get used to doing it, and then those harmless regulations will ever so slowly turn into more harmful ones.
All this military spending in name of "national security"....meh I couldn't care less about national security. The harder it becomes to take over America, the harder it becomes for us to exercise our rights and overthrow our current form of government, should we see fit. I'd rather live my life and chance dying than be dead my whole life without a chance to live as a free man.
"Second, there are currently no scientific theories that explain the development of life as well as evolution does."
Sorry, but this is nothing but opinion. Evolution is based on scientific theory that is widely accepted. But scientific theories are based on/backed up with what? Evidence, of course, but you have to interpret that evidence. So we use logic for our interpretation to infer that what we see in this part of the universe is what happens on the other side of the universe (ie, my car is in the parking lot outside but is not simutaneously on the driveway at my house). But what is this logic based on? Whats to say that on the other side of the universe, my car can be in both places at once? Everyone assumes, after never seeing the car in 2 places at once, that the car will be in one place. But assumption is not acceptable under scientific guidelines. The assumption of the universal applicability of logic must be backed up with a self-attesting universal. Saying that logic is based on science, which is based again on logic, is not a self-attesting assumption. Claiming it is so negates your use of logic as the universal standard, as circular reasoning is illogical by defition. Thus your assumption of logic it is merely an opinion and nothing more than that.
Now I have a universal standard, a self attesting assumption to base my logic on. Its ok to have assumptions, but they have to be 100% self-attesting. IE if you take the assumption, everything under it must fit in perfectly. My assumption is the Christian God (and only the Christian God, as all the other religions fail to completely describe humanity's problem, as I am explaining it now, or if they do explain it, they do not offer a way out) who is self-attesting in everything he does. Looking from the outside, you may ask questions and try to poke holes. But you are assuming you are even in a position to evaluate the prospect of God. You (and by you I mean the whole that assumes logic without a 100% self-attesting assumption) need to come up with some way to justify that you have any rightful position to be in the mindset of asking God questions. Without proving your right to ask questions (and might I add that you are not even able to prove your right without assuming logic as before), all you have to go on is personal opinion, which has no weight in the world of the perfect God.
"It is the most widely accepted theory by a huge margin."
I'd like to mention that being widely accepted does not make a theory true.
The Bible explains the human dilemma, our need for as self-attesting universal standard in order to base anything on something of more value than opinion. It also provides the way out, a relationship with God. But as we are sinful, this is not possible without an atonement to bring us into right standing with God (perfection cannot live with imperfection). So God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for us so that we might live to enjoy God (and thus have not only a universal standard but a universal purpose); and he offers a relationship through his son to all who would ask him for it. So ask him, and get weight and find meaning and purpose to your life.
Because the majority of people are stupid. The masses will still buy this. So for Sony, they'll still see profit, which means they won't see a problem.
We have to protect the stupid and do something about this. Passive Aggression a la boycotting products will never be enough, we have to go on the offense and bring numerous lawsuits. Maybe the insurance company will drop Sony/raise prices? If we do this enough, Sony will have to do something. If we simply don't buy the products, Sony doesn't have to do _anything_ as long as they are making a profit. The main reason boycotting won't work is because Sony knows what we're thinking. They know we'll come back and buy their products if they make them decent again. So really this is a win/tie situation for them, with no loss. The only way we can make them lose is if we force them to change.
Is it just me and all the articles I'm reading on slashdot, or is the market truly getting ready for a serious Microsoft ousting? All the things are lining up...google, new Firefoxes, OpenOffice...
The world follows the tech people, and the tech people say its time to ditch Microsoft. I see something happening.
Oh and then when it becomes standard, OpenOffice could have an "upgrade" that would _require_ Firefox. Give Microsoft some of their own medicince. As soon as they could push the upgrade, they should.
Since the computer is reading how your face is moving and what it is saying, couldn't a separate program digitially edit out these electrodes? Jaw moves down to say "ah" and the computer knows that it needs to shade over the electrode lower than it was doing before.
Citing tech limitations is a valid argument for us Americans...but not the Japanese...they're masters of perfection. If they want to do it, they'll figure out how to, and they'll do it fast and cheap.
It could become very difficult to catch Mexicans crossing the boarders in these....I bet 10 could fit into one of these. A bag of these could hold the entire population of Mexico!
I suggest an ammendment to the minimum wage rule. Get rid of minimum wage, pay these guys 25 cents per hour and give me my Big Mac Meal for 15 cents!
Microsoft is ok with "white hat" hackers, but when asked about the "Red Hat" crackers, Microsoft confirmed that these malicious coders only hurt Windows.
This means that if you decide you want to run VMWare and have 5 different, completely secluded servers (for security purposes...if one of the virtual servers goes down, the others will still run), then you will have to buy one license for every installation, as opposed to being able to install the same copy 5 different times under VMWare.
Sure, we all say its not that bad; and it really isn't. People defend stuff like this by saying "oh, well I don't care cause I haven't done anything." But the problem with that school of thought is that you are assuming they have a right to this information. They haven't shown me how this is going to benefit me, and even if they show me, I'm still the one who make the decision about whether or not I think this is good; regardless of what they say. The only real reason they want to implement these is because it gives them more power at our expense. Sure its not a big expense, but why do they deserve that power? They don't and therefore don't need to be doing this.
I've been thinking the same rule should be applied to proprietary software makers as well. If they want it closed source, then they can have it their way, but they have to pay for it as well. Thats the price they pay for haveing complete control. Open Source vendors wouldn't have these requirements because the code is available and truly a use-at-your-own-risk program, unlike proprietary softwares.
Put some of that cash in Microsoft's fat pockets to some use. There would be no argument for Palladium and NGSCB in regards to code security anymore.
Except that its not free to the one receiving the message. I get charged 10 cents for each receieved message. So if I message my mom, she pays 20 cents.
I think that the grandparent's description brings up a deep problem in Eastern religions. Its simply against human nature to want to deny yourself everything. That simply isn't satisfying. But it also isn't satisfying to say "yes" to every urge and desire that comes our way. Instead, given the correct description of the Christian way of life, God invites us not into emptying ourselves of every happiness, but to rejoicing ourselves in the many blessings he's given the world to enjoy. He wants us to enjoy him; thats why he blesses us and has sent his son to die for us, so that we could spend eternity learning the infinite number of cool things that he knows and praising him for how wonderful he is. He doesn't want us to be unhappy, he wants us to be fulfilled. Problem is, most of us think the mediocrity he explains in the Bible deprives life of its pleasures (sex, drugs, getting drunk, "owning" ourselves). Instead he shows us that sex is only best when its in the confines of marriage (thats where it means the most to us and can thus satisfy us most); that drugs, while they feel good for a time, inevitably lead to death like all other sin; that getting drunk, while it may be fun at the time, hurts later, has physical consequences, and simply isn't going to satisfy us like he can; and lastly (and by no means the least, more likely the greatest and best), willingly submitting our consciousness to him is infinitely more satisfying than controlling our life could ever be. I can't hold on to my life, nor can I ever value it enough; but God can keep it for me and love it and fill it with so many more joys than I could have possibly imagined.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be a perfect time for Fox to release Firefly on the Ipod and pull in some extra monies. Perhaps people might buy it?
I make 2 partitions, one for My Documents and one for my C: drive that will have the Windows partition and the program files and all that good stuff. Then I update Windows and get the latest everything installed. Then I install all my programs. I make all my registry tweaks (I found one that auto-unloads DLL's after you close an application to be incredibly handy, and to keep my XP fresh and fast), install all my drivers, and get everything set up perfectly. Then I create a system restore point, where everything is perfect.
That way, should I ever have a problem, I can just role back to when it all was perfect; or if I should need to reformat, I don't have trouble backing up all my data. Just move all the special folders with configs and save files and anything else important on the C: drive over to the D: partition, reformat and reinstall Windows on the C: partition, and you're good!
I don't run any antivirus besides MS Antispyware Beta, Adaware Personal SE, and Spybot S&D. Haven't had any problems whatsoever for at least 6 months.
But......wheres the headline about Apple? Is there a new Ipod? I want to hear about the sky, common people. Is it still blue?
It certainly makes Linux better!
Wouldn't this be somewhat counteracted by the fact that when Hydrogen burns (say in a tube), the product has less volume than the reactants?
Whats with all the flu coverage lately? If we didn't have a vaccine, this wouldn't have even been covered.
I think its silly that people fuss about not being able to get the flu vaccine when 10 years ago they couldn't anyways. I'd tell them to start running or get in shape so that they'd better be able to combat the virus.
I believe my fear is that this will take away some of the reasons why public protesting has not been regulated most of the time...simply because the only real method of regulating it involved causing direct harm to someone. When there is no harm caused, but only discomfort, then there will much less reason to not regulate...hence it could become more difficult to protest without some form of governmental regulation. If we fuss and say they made is go come cause we all were blinded for 20 minutes, everyone else can say "Meh, you're not harmed, I don't care about what you're protesting about, so I'm not going to bother that your rights were infringed."
I'm thinking that when there are fewer repercussions for "regulating" then the government will get used to doing it, and then those harmless regulations will ever so slowly turn into more harmful ones.
All this military spending in name of "national security"....meh I couldn't care less about national security. The harder it becomes to take over America, the harder it becomes for us to exercise our rights and overthrow our current form of government, should we see fit. I'd rather live my life and chance dying than be dead my whole life without a chance to live as a free man.
"Second, there are currently no scientific theories that explain the development of life as well as evolution does."
Sorry, but this is nothing but opinion. Evolution is based on scientific theory that is widely accepted. But scientific theories are based on/backed up with what? Evidence, of course, but you have to interpret that evidence. So we use logic for our interpretation to infer that what we see in this part of the universe is what happens on the other side of the universe (ie, my car is in the parking lot outside but is not simutaneously on the driveway at my house). But what is this logic based on? Whats to say that on the other side of the universe, my car can be in both places at once? Everyone assumes, after never seeing the car in 2 places at once, that the car will be in one place. But assumption is not acceptable under scientific guidelines. The assumption of the universal applicability of logic must be backed up with a self-attesting universal. Saying that logic is based on science, which is based again on logic, is not a self-attesting assumption. Claiming it is so negates your use of logic as the universal standard, as circular reasoning is illogical by defition. Thus your assumption of logic it is merely an opinion and nothing more than that.
Now I have a universal standard, a self attesting assumption to base my logic on. Its ok to have assumptions, but they have to be 100% self-attesting. IE if you take the assumption, everything under it must fit in perfectly. My assumption is the Christian God (and only the Christian God, as all the other religions fail to completely describe humanity's problem, as I am explaining it now, or if they do explain it, they do not offer a way out) who is self-attesting in everything he does. Looking from the outside, you may ask questions and try to poke holes. But you are assuming you are even in a position to evaluate the prospect of God. You (and by you I mean the whole that assumes logic without a 100% self-attesting assumption) need to come up with some way to justify that you have any rightful position to be in the mindset of asking God questions. Without proving your right to ask questions (and might I add that you are not even able to prove your right without assuming logic as before), all you have to go on is personal opinion, which has no weight in the world of the perfect God.
"It is the most widely accepted theory by a huge margin."
I'd like to mention that being widely accepted does not make a theory true.
The Bible explains the human dilemma, our need for as self-attesting universal standard in order to base anything on something of more value than opinion. It also provides the way out, a relationship with God. But as we are sinful, this is not possible without an atonement to bring us into right standing with God (perfection cannot live with imperfection). So God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for us so that we might live to enjoy God (and thus have not only a universal standard but a universal purpose); and he offers a relationship through his son to all who would ask him for it. So ask him, and get weight and find meaning and purpose to your life.
Because the majority of people are stupid. The masses will still buy this. So for Sony, they'll still see profit, which means they won't see a problem.
We have to protect the stupid and do something about this. Passive Aggression a la boycotting products will never be enough, we have to go on the offense and bring numerous lawsuits. Maybe the insurance company will drop Sony/raise prices? If we do this enough, Sony will have to do something. If we simply don't buy the products, Sony doesn't have to do _anything_ as long as they are making a profit. The main reason boycotting won't work is because Sony knows what we're thinking. They know we'll come back and buy their products if they make them decent again. So really this is a win/tie situation for them, with no loss. The only way we can make them lose is if we force them to change.
Is it just me and all the articles I'm reading on slashdot, or is the market truly getting ready for a serious Microsoft ousting? All the things are lining up...google, new Firefoxes, OpenOffice...
The world follows the tech people, and the tech people say its time to ditch Microsoft. I see something happening.
Oh and then when it becomes standard, OpenOffice could have an "upgrade" that would _require_ Firefox. Give Microsoft some of their own medicince. As soon as they could push the upgrade, they should.
Anything below 7hz is detected by the human ear as a pressure change, not a sound. So making this very loud would be very painful.
On a side note, I'll buy one when I have the money. Never can have too much sub.
Since the computer is reading how your face is moving and what it is saying, couldn't a separate program digitially edit out these electrodes? Jaw moves down to say "ah" and the computer knows that it needs to shade over the electrode lower than it was doing before.
Citing tech limitations is a valid argument for us Americans...but not the Japanese...they're masters of perfection. If they want to do it, they'll figure out how to, and they'll do it fast and cheap.
It could become very difficult to catch Mexicans crossing the boarders in these....I bet 10 could fit into one of these. A bag of these could hold the entire population of Mexico!
I suggest an ammendment to the minimum wage rule. Get rid of minimum wage, pay these guys 25 cents per hour and give me my Big Mac Meal for 15 cents!
Microsoft is ok with "white hat" hackers, but when asked about the "Red Hat" crackers, Microsoft confirmed that these malicious coders only hurt Windows.
Heh, yeah, thats the point of Linux.
I believe this could be why I always woke up with puffy eyes. Mom wouldn't believe me and get a new pillow. Washing it never helped.
How would lower prices have affected Nintendo's N64? If developers could have payed 20 instead of 35$ for each cartridge, would Nintendo be on top?
This means that if you decide you want to run VMWare and have 5 different, completely secluded servers (for security purposes...if one of the virtual servers goes down, the others will still run), then you will have to buy one license for every installation, as opposed to being able to install the same copy 5 different times under VMWare.
Yet another way to leach more money out of us.
Sure, we all say its not that bad; and it really isn't. People defend stuff like this by saying "oh, well I don't care cause I haven't done anything." But the problem with that school of thought is that you are assuming they have a right to this information. They haven't shown me how this is going to benefit me, and even if they show me, I'm still the one who make the decision about whether or not I think this is good; regardless of what they say. The only real reason they want to implement these is because it gives them more power at our expense. Sure its not a big expense, but why do they deserve that power? They don't and therefore don't need to be doing this.
I think there is nothing to see here (literally). Move on?
Maybe they sorta improve on stuff when they have competition, but real innovation? Nah.
I've been thinking the same rule should be applied to proprietary software makers as well. If they want it closed source, then they can have it their way, but they have to pay for it as well. Thats the price they pay for haveing complete control. Open Source vendors wouldn't have these requirements because the code is available and truly a use-at-your-own-risk program, unlike proprietary softwares.
Put some of that cash in Microsoft's fat pockets to some use.
There would be no argument for Palladium and NGSCB in regards to code security anymore.
Except that its not free to the one receiving the message. I get charged 10 cents for each receieved message. So if I message my mom, she pays 20 cents.
I think that the grandparent's description brings up a deep problem in Eastern religions. Its simply against human nature to want to deny yourself everything. That simply isn't satisfying. But it also isn't satisfying to say "yes" to every urge and desire that comes our way. Instead, given the correct description of the Christian way of life, God invites us not into emptying ourselves of every happiness, but to rejoicing ourselves in the many blessings he's given the world to enjoy. He wants us to enjoy him; thats why he blesses us and has sent his son to die for us, so that we could spend eternity learning the infinite number of cool things that he knows and praising him for how wonderful he is. He doesn't want us to be unhappy, he wants us to be fulfilled. Problem is, most of us think the mediocrity he explains in the Bible deprives life of its pleasures (sex, drugs, getting drunk, "owning" ourselves). Instead he shows us that sex is only best when its in the confines of marriage (thats where it means the most to us and can thus satisfy us most); that drugs, while they feel good for a time, inevitably lead to death like all other sin; that getting drunk, while it may be fun at the time, hurts later, has physical consequences, and simply isn't going to satisfy us like he can; and lastly (and by no means the least, more likely the greatest and best), willingly submitting our consciousness to him is infinitely more satisfying than controlling our life could ever be. I can't hold on to my life, nor can I ever value it enough; but God can keep it for me and love it and fill it with so many more joys than I could have possibly imagined.
Owning one's self is so much more boring.