based on how often the power company comes around and "maintains" the power lines coming into my house, i calculate that a fair fee for maintenance of my connection to be around.... (assuming a ballpark 30$ an hour wage for the technicians)..... 75 cents every 6 years or so.
honestly, i know that there is work done on the grid all over all the time, but to say that because a wire runs into my house, (that, if i was one of the customers in question, i am not using) i have to pay for 'maintenance' on that thing? pft. its a insulated metal wire, that stands there ignored for decades at a shot.
the vast number of people still on the grid and paying for power are more than enough to pay for when lightning strikes and ruins some part of it, or a power pole gets knocked down in a car crash. charging people who have gone to great lengths to stop needing to be paying customers is greed, pure and simple.
my question about all this is, why is he not in pain all the time from the white noise in those frequency bands? its not like they magically disappear when there is no wireless router around, the frequency band is there, and there is random noise in it generated by the various parts of the universe. The "well, the wifi signal is stronger" excuse seems markedly lame to me.
not if you build it right.
its a simple matter to keep termites out (you use treated lumber for all your sill-plates) and the trick to keeping mold out, is to not let the damn thing get rained on and then slap all the siding and what not on. if its dry when you side and roof it, no mold. i've seen wooden houses over 100 years old in areas prone to both, and when built correctly, the problems are nil.
i concur, the first thing i thought watching the launch video was "damn, thats a lot of parachutes to potentially get fouled" it seems like a far to complex system for something that, if its needed, needs to perform flawlessly. (that said, one hopes to never need the damn thing)
exactly, this is where a lot of games fall down. World of Warcraft may have semi-cartoony, stylized graphics, but it is a complete world, down to the ogre crap and insects buzzing around. on the other hand, like you said, if a game shoots for photo-realism in its graphics, anything that is not perfect, or missing that you expect to be there in a photorealistic environment, is a blaring omission.
I for one think that Graphics in video games are important, but effectively, they are important on a scale of the game play. example, Ratchet and Clank is a blast to play, graphics are cartoony, polygonal, and goofy. Crysis is fun to play, and the graphics are far more realistic. how can both be fun? expectation of content, pure and simple. you go into R&C expecting a wacky world and whatnot, so the graphics follow the formula that the game type has set. you go onto Crysis looking for a real/futuristic combat setting where you can take advantage of terrain and environment to best your opponents.
the graphics follow the game type. THAT is what is important. the graphics are the means by which they show you the story, final example: the movie toy story. it was a cute fun movie. now imagine that it was done with michael bay special effects, not the stylized cartoony CGI. different movie entirely now. probably not nearly as cute or fun. graphics define how we approach and feel a game, but they must fit the archetype of the game for them to be "good graphics"
waypoints, such as where in Diablo 2 come to mind. yes you can teleport to an area, but you are not going to be standing in front of your final destination when you arrive, you are just in the general area.
they have both a Gel Spray, AND the swabs. i've used the swabs, and they do seem to help, (but you just apply that around the inside of the nostril) If i understand what i'm reading, this is about the Gel Spray, which would be a much larger dose, applied farther inside the nasal passages.
the real problem with the molten iron core theory, happens to be, as any good metallurgist can tell you, that iron becomes non-magnetic at temperatures far cooler than required to actually melt iron. now, i am not a geophysicist, but i get the feeling that this throws a rather large wrench into the theory.
it *should* matter, because if we can produce a more efficient incandescent, it rules moot the reasons behind banning them (they are inefficient). coupled with the mercury in CFL bulbs, this particular advancement is sound reasoning to re-examine the incandescent ban.
of course, because the people that decide this shit for us are complete twats, it won't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
the part where you can still all sit in a room with a B movie playing and play starcraft, as long as you have an internet connection....
trust me, you don't want to be a carpenter. the hours are shit, the wages still suck, and you smash your thumbs with hammers far more often.
based on how often the power company comes around and "maintains" the power lines coming into my house, i calculate that a fair fee for maintenance of my connection to be around.... (assuming a ballpark 30$ an hour wage for the technicians)..... 75 cents every 6 years or so.
honestly, i know that there is work done on the grid all over all the time, but to say that because a wire runs into my house, (that, if i was one of the customers in question, i am not using) i have to pay for 'maintenance' on that thing? pft. its a insulated metal wire, that stands there ignored for decades at a shot.
the vast number of people still on the grid and paying for power are more than enough to pay for when lightning strikes and ruins some part of it, or a power pole gets knocked down in a car crash. charging people who have gone to great lengths to stop needing to be paying customers is greed, pure and simple.
Badgers!!!!
does not mean that the newer TV's don't put off aggravating high frequency squeals when they are on. (which some do)
my question about all this is, why is he not in pain all the time from the white noise in those frequency bands? its not like they magically disappear when there is no wireless router around, the frequency band is there, and there is random noise in it generated by the various parts of the universe. The "well, the wifi signal is stronger" excuse seems markedly lame to me.
not if you build it right. its a simple matter to keep termites out (you use treated lumber for all your sill-plates) and the trick to keeping mold out, is to not let the damn thing get rained on and then slap all the siding and what not on. if its dry when you side and roof it, no mold. i've seen wooden houses over 100 years old in areas prone to both, and when built correctly, the problems are nil.
i concur, the first thing i thought watching the launch video was "damn, thats a lot of parachutes to potentially get fouled" it seems like a far to complex system for something that, if its needed, needs to perform flawlessly. (that said, one hopes to never need the damn thing)
my job starts at 5am you Insensitive Clod!
exactly, this is where a lot of games fall down. World of Warcraft may have semi-cartoony, stylized graphics, but it is a complete world, down to the ogre crap and insects buzzing around. on the other hand, like you said, if a game shoots for photo-realism in its graphics, anything that is not perfect, or missing that you expect to be there in a photorealistic environment, is a blaring omission.
I for one think that Graphics in video games are important, but effectively, they are important on a scale of the game play. example, Ratchet and Clank is a blast to play, graphics are cartoony, polygonal, and goofy. Crysis is fun to play, and the graphics are far more realistic. how can both be fun? expectation of content, pure and simple. you go into R&C expecting a wacky world and whatnot, so the graphics follow the formula that the game type has set. you go onto Crysis looking for a real/futuristic combat setting where you can take advantage of terrain and environment to best your opponents.
the graphics follow the game type. THAT is what is important. the graphics are the means by which they show you the story, final example: the movie toy story. it was a cute fun movie. now imagine that it was done with michael bay special effects, not the stylized cartoony CGI. different movie entirely now. probably not nearly as cute or fun. graphics define how we approach and feel a game, but they must fit the archetype of the game for them to be "good graphics"
i love that game. i still have it installed, load it up whenever i get the FPS itch. to bad the second one sucked.
considering they rolled 10 million dollars last year, i don't think its crimping it much.
waypoints, such as where in Diablo 2 come to mind. yes you can teleport to an area, but you are not going to be standing in front of your final destination when you arrive, you are just in the general area.
i never said i was defending the stupid water theory.
I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
they have both a Gel Spray, AND the swabs. i've used the swabs, and they do seem to help, (but you just apply that around the inside of the nostril) If i understand what i'm reading, this is about the Gel Spray, which would be a much larger dose, applied farther inside the nasal passages.
does anyone else think that this sounds like a complete pain in the ass way to conduct financial transactions?
that said, if you find a few steel pennies, you stand to make a decent sum from the coin collecting crowd, so it'd be worth it.
the real problem with the molten iron core theory, happens to be, as any good metallurgist can tell you, that iron becomes non-magnetic at temperatures far cooler than required to actually melt iron. now, i am not a geophysicist, but i get the feeling that this throws a rather large wrench into the theory.
its more like there needs to be a " -1 annoying" moderation setting.
fuck you. i can get water out of the air with a sheet of plastic a fair size hole in the ground, and a rock. (google solar still)
its not so much "brainwashed into thinking that he's not unusual" as "Brainwashed into thinking everyone is special"
THANK YOU! finally someone who gets it when it comes to solar power.
it *should* matter, because if we can produce a more efficient incandescent, it rules moot the reasons behind banning them (they are inefficient). coupled with the mercury in CFL bulbs, this particular advancement is sound reasoning to re-examine the incandescent ban. of course, because the people that decide this shit for us are complete twats, it won't happen.
even better: http://netgear.com/Products/CommunicationsVoIP/Skype/SPH150D.aspx