Affected applications included MS Office, and products from IBM (Rational), GreenHills, MS Office, Ansys, Adobe, Autocad, Hyperion, Win MPM, MS Shared, MapInfo, Macromedia, MySQL, CA, Cold Fusion, ATI, FTP Voyager, Visual Studio, PTC, ADS, FEMAP, STAT, Rational.
A few points on that. You don't want increased latency, you want decreased latency. And the only place that a high latency is really acceptable is in large file transfers. It doesn't matter much if you have a 2 second latency when you're spending 30 minutes on a download. However, that simply KILLS any online gaming and is quite undesirable with VoIP or on the web.
Bandwidth and latency are comparable to a bulldozer. The bandwidth is the size of the bucket and the latency is how fast the truck moves. Of course that's a clumsy comparison, but a lot of people don't understand how vastly different bandwidth and latency are.
I'd pay $10 per month extra for a guarentee of low latency. But my biggest problem with that is I can't trust them do deliver, since right now I'm paying for a bandwidth range that they can't deliver most of the time. When I pay the extra to jump from a maximum of 1.5mbit to 5mbit I expect to consistantly get more than 1.5mbit at least.
"no" as in, no we don't want anything that hot on the earth? Now, answering the question in TFA is considered trolling?
Nice article, too. First it says they tell us "LiveScience is reporting how" the scientists did this, then they say the scientists "don't know how they did it."
Did they have a heavy night of drinking after the press meeting? You should be forwarding this article to the scientists, then. To help them refresh their memory.
it's not a bad price if you consider they include the price of a 15" LCD monitor for that price tag. Of course I'd go with a 17" CRT instead, for their price of $461.
I bought an eMachine AMD Athalon 64 3400+ with 1 gig ram, 200 gig drive, DVD burner, XPMCE etc. blah blah for $500. Complete system less the monitor. With a $100 PCI-Express video upgrade, it's a pretty fair gaming machine for $600. $525 for a basic box isn't a very good deal.
What I'd like to see is the judge shutting down the Blackberry network for all Blackberry units except those own by government personel and then see RIM pull the ole Microsoft anti-trust verdict response of "uhh, we can't do that" when told to de-integrate IE from Windows. Actually, does RIM even have any obligation to the government to continue service if other service is shut down? If I were RIM, upon being told to shut down the network except for government personal, I'd give them the big finger and shut them down, too. "Eat it, dickheads. I don't have to do squat."
"I believe government agencies should get an exemption based on the use of taxpayer dollars to put the BlackBerry infrastructure in place and the potential costs associated with replacing the technology," Biswell said. "This may not be fair to private companies, but we are all taxpayers, so it makes my position easier to justify."
Sounds nice and flufy. What he really means is it's not in his department's budget and they couldn't afford it. I wonder, how did the government ever operate before the advent email and instant messenger?
If you're going to enforce the law, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW!! Don't make exceptions for government panseys who feel their operations will be hurt (oh, like other people aren't hurt? or are you special?) if Blackberry does get shut down.
Does "a government for the people, by the people" ring any LIBERTY BELLS?
I would like to point out that nowhere in the article is it mentioned who is responsible or who benefitted from the votes in question. Everyone pointing fingers can shove them up your arses. It's all political BS.
Just because there was voter fraud doesn't mean the election was fraudulent. There would have to be sufficiant fraud to cause a change in the outcome of the election for the election to become fraudulent. I'm sure neither of the candidates were involved in fraud. It's too dangerous. Instead, they rely on their supporters to do what is necessary to win. The party with the most passion is the most likely to commit crime in attempt to get their man into office. It's clear which party following had more fervor, the democrats. And most of the election-day criminal activity reported was in favor of the democrats.
Bush stole the election? (the common rhetoric, implied without fault by your comment that the election was fraudulent... which means the result came about only through fraud) You mean, despite the democrats' intense fervor and criminal actions, the dems lost, so the republicans MUST have been cheating? You're so full of shit. Give me a break. Don't pretend like democrats didn't lie, cheat and steal in attempt to get their man into office. And, knowing they did, you have absolutely NO room to decry republican voter fraud unless you decry both with equal contempt.
Voter fraud is an attack upon democrasy itself.
Not gonna hide from my political comments here. Mod me down if you like.
Are you sure? That title is dated 1982 on Amazon. Chapman died in 89. Although the other points you mention sound familiar. I think I found it at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287570/
When I was younger, I had to wake up at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a dry lump of poison, work 29 hours down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work. And when we got home, our Dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing 'halleluyah'.
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't... laugh?
Actually, they had his corpse cremated. They had his ashes in an urn and... well... maybe you should just watch it.
I tried to remember the name of the show I saw and find it on IMDB but I couldn't come up with a name that matched what was listed under the various actors. I thought it was something to the effect of reunion. It may have been an HBO special I recorded around 6 years ago. Anyone know the name of that title and if it's on IMDB?
Anyone else for sex and against violence on TV and in movies? This comment is for you.
A drama without violence is called a soap opera, a chick flick, or pornography. Quite frankly, excepting pornography, these don't interest about 80% or more of males, who are likely the larger market when it comes to TV/movie entertainment. And voyeurism (with the camera) in TV/movies does little or nothing to progress the story. A drama does not need to show genitals or breasts. Dramas certainly don't need to show genital or nipple action. If you have a problem with that being rated unacceptable for younger viewers, you should probably go back to your porn and shut up. Because there's so much more to it than just your "sex is good" and "murder is bad" argument. You are being simple. Murder is more obscene than sex, but obscenities have nothing to do with the difference between the R and X ratings.
Violence is completely different than sex and nudity. Yes, sex and nudity are beautiful. I understand all your arguments why sex is better than violence. Murder is worse than sex, hands down. But your arguments are not enough. A child witness to a crime that they know is wrong is not as likely to repeat that crime as compared to one who witnesses sexual acts is to repeat those acts. That's what makes graphic sex unacceptable for some audiences while violence is more acceptable. But logically speaking, neither is healthy for an immature mind.
Our brains are quite sensitive to sexual images. We take in sexual images a lot differently than we take in violent images. Knowing that violence is (generally) wrong inhibits us from acting violently. But since consensual sex is welcomed (except for religious and social restrictions) and considered enjoyable to both parties involved, viewing sexual images promotes sexual activity in a way far beyond that which violent images promotes violence.
We are weaker to sex than to violence. Precautions are made for those who are young, for those who are weak and even for those who find it undesirable or distasteful to witness sexual acts of other people. Not everyone is a voyeur.
Yes. Violence is more obscene than nutidy or sex. But they affect us differently and, because of that, TV/movie viewing of them are regulated with different standards. That's not screwed up. Your argument is. We have a social standard that makes sex taboo for children. The only way that works is if it's reinforced with more social standards making it wrong to give children access to view sexual images.
Of course, that standard is slowly changing... or the line between children and adults growing fuzzier. But there may be unforseen dangers in teaching and promoting sexual activity among young tenagers. We may be opening Pandora's box.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that gives me ground to claim that Christianity started with Adam & Eve, too. Judaism, as well.
But we don't say that. Instead, we go by what history shows. Is there any historical support for a thing called "Islam" existing prior to Muhammad?
And to you moderators, that isn't a commedy routine. The guy is serious.
Affected applications included MS Office, and products from IBM (Rational), GreenHills, MS Office, Ansys, Adobe, Autocad, Hyperion, Win MPM, MS Shared, MapInfo, Macromedia, MySQL, CA, Cold Fusion, ATI, FTP Voyager, Visual Studio, PTC, ADS, FEMAP, STAT, Rational.
So was MS Office affected twice?
A few points on that. You don't want increased latency, you want decreased latency. And the only place that a high latency is really acceptable is in large file transfers. It doesn't matter much if you have a 2 second latency when you're spending 30 minutes on a download. However, that simply KILLS any online gaming and is quite undesirable with VoIP or on the web.
Bandwidth and latency are comparable to a bulldozer. The bandwidth is the size of the bucket and the latency is how fast the truck moves. Of course that's a clumsy comparison, but a lot of people don't understand how vastly different bandwidth and latency are.
I'd pay $10 per month extra for a guarentee of low latency. But my biggest problem with that is I can't trust them do deliver, since right now I'm paying for a bandwidth range that they can't deliver most of the time. When I pay the extra to jump from a maximum of 1.5mbit to 5mbit I expect to consistantly get more than 1.5mbit at least.
Yeah. She did have something special, especially when it came to Inara.... ....... I'll be in my bunk.
And for people who talk it the theater. A special place.
"no" as in, no we don't want anything that hot on the earth? Now, answering the question in TFA is considered trolling?
Nice article, too. First it says they tell us "LiveScience is reporting how" the scientists did this, then they say the scientists "don't know how they did it."
Did they have a heavy night of drinking after the press meeting? You should be forwarding this article to the scientists, then. To help them refresh their memory.
GTA is not casual garbage, it's quite deliberate.
Pinky Rulez! NARF!
And if the moon were in that simulator, it would be superimposed (colliding) with the earth, too.
it's not a bad price if you consider they include the price of a 15" LCD monitor for that price tag. Of course I'd go with a 17" CRT instead, for their price of $461.
I bought an eMachine AMD Athalon 64 3400+ with 1 gig ram, 200 gig drive, DVD burner, XPMCE etc. blah blah for $500. Complete system less the monitor. With a $100 PCI-Express video upgrade, it's a pretty fair gaming machine for $600. $525 for a basic box isn't a very good deal.
That is not a personal right.
Sure, some ARE *special*, but not in the sense of having more RIGHTS than the rest of us.
What I'd like to see is the judge shutting down the Blackberry network for all Blackberry units except those own by government personel and then see RIM pull the ole Microsoft anti-trust verdict response of "uhh, we can't do that" when told to de-integrate IE from Windows. Actually, does RIM even have any obligation to the government to continue service if other service is shut down? If I were RIM, upon being told to shut down the network except for government personal, I'd give them the big finger and shut them down, too. "Eat it, dickheads. I don't have to do squat."
"I believe government agencies should get an exemption based on the use of taxpayer dollars to put the BlackBerry infrastructure in place and the potential costs associated with replacing the technology," Biswell said. "This may not be fair to private companies, but we are all taxpayers, so it makes my position easier to justify."
Sounds nice and flufy. What he really means is it's not in his department's budget and they couldn't afford it. I wonder, how did the government ever operate before the advent email and instant messenger?
http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/s tory/0,10801,108094,00.html
If you're going to enforce the law, ENFORCE THE FUCKING LAW!! Don't make exceptions for government panseys who feel their operations will be hurt (oh, like other people aren't hurt? or are you special?) if Blackberry does get shut down.
Does "a government for the people, by the people" ring any LIBERTY BELLS?
I was going to say, isn't "chink" a racial slur??
You think that would stop the media, or the democrats from investigating?
No.
I would like to point out that nowhere in the article is it mentioned who is responsible or who benefitted from the votes in question. Everyone pointing fingers can shove them up your arses. It's all political BS.
Just because there was voter fraud doesn't mean the election was fraudulent. There would have to be sufficiant fraud to cause a change in the outcome of the election for the election to become fraudulent. I'm sure neither of the candidates were involved in fraud. It's too dangerous. Instead, they rely on their supporters to do what is necessary to win. The party with the most passion is the most likely to commit crime in attempt to get their man into office. It's clear which party following had more fervor, the democrats. And most of the election-day criminal activity reported was in favor of the democrats.
Bush stole the election? (the common rhetoric, implied without fault by your comment that the election was fraudulent... which means the result came about only through fraud) You mean, despite the democrats' intense fervor and criminal actions, the dems lost, so the republicans MUST have been cheating? You're so full of shit. Give me a break. Don't pretend like democrats didn't lie, cheat and steal in attempt to get their man into office. And, knowing they did, you have absolutely NO room to decry republican voter fraud unless you decry both with equal contempt.
Voter fraud is an attack upon democrasy itself.
Not gonna hide from my political comments here. Mod me down if you like.
Are you sure? That title is dated 1982 on Amazon. Chapman died in 89. Although the other points you mention sound familiar. I think I found it at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287570/
When I was younger, I had to wake up at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a dry lump of poison, work 29 hours down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work. And when we got home, our Dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing 'halleluyah'.
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't... laugh?
Actually, they had his corpse cremated. They had his ashes in an urn and... well... maybe you should just watch it.
I tried to remember the name of the show I saw and find it on IMDB but I couldn't come up with a name that matched what was listed under the various actors. I thought it was something to the effect of reunion. It may have been an HBO special I recorded around 6 years ago. Anyone know the name of that title and if it's on IMDB?
We'll set up a free VoIP service that will knock their eyes out. After we knock their eyes out, we can charge them anything we want.
Anyone else for sex and against violence on TV and in movies? This comment is for you.
A drama without violence is called a soap opera, a chick flick, or pornography. Quite frankly, excepting pornography, these don't interest about 80% or more of males, who are likely the larger market when it comes to TV/movie entertainment. And voyeurism (with the camera) in TV/movies does little or nothing to progress the story. A drama does not need to show genitals or breasts. Dramas certainly don't need to show genital or nipple action. If you have a problem with that being rated unacceptable for younger viewers, you should probably go back to your porn and shut up. Because there's so much more to it than just your "sex is good" and "murder is bad" argument. You are being simple. Murder is more obscene than sex, but obscenities have nothing to do with the difference between the R and X ratings.
Violence is completely different than sex and nudity. Yes, sex and nudity are beautiful. I understand all your arguments why sex is better than violence. Murder is worse than sex, hands down. But your arguments are not enough. A child witness to a crime that they know is wrong is not as likely to repeat that crime as compared to one who witnesses sexual acts is to repeat those acts. That's what makes graphic sex unacceptable for some audiences while violence is more acceptable. But logically speaking, neither is healthy for an immature mind.
Our brains are quite sensitive to sexual images. We take in sexual images a lot differently than we take in violent images. Knowing that violence is (generally) wrong inhibits us from acting violently. But since consensual sex is welcomed (except for religious and social restrictions) and considered enjoyable to both parties involved, viewing sexual images promotes sexual activity in a way far beyond that which violent images promotes violence.
We are weaker to sex than to violence. Precautions are made for those who are young, for those who are weak and even for those who find it undesirable or distasteful to witness sexual acts of other people. Not everyone is a voyeur.
Yes. Violence is more obscene than nutidy or sex. But they affect us differently and, because of that, TV/movie viewing of them are regulated with different standards. That's not screwed up. Your argument is. We have a social standard that makes sex taboo for children. The only way that works is if it's reinforced with more social standards making it wrong to give children access to view sexual images.
Of course, that standard is slowly changing... or the line between children and adults growing fuzzier. But there may be unforseen dangers in teaching and promoting sexual activity among young tenagers. We may be opening Pandora's box.
P.S. Pandora's box is hot.
[/rant]
Ritual suicide?
Not if the exercise is accompanied with 'roids.