If there's no grain in it, it's not beer. Since the primary carbohydrate source in it is honey, it's mean - honey wine.
I don't know how nice this mead is, but you're certainly right that it is not beer.
It's kinda cool, but it's pretty much worthless and meaningless from a historical and scientific standpoint.
Agreed again. It is impossible to duplicate an ancient recipe unless we know for sure that we can use the exact same ingredients and utilize the same preparation methods. This is cool though, and perhaps at least somewhat similar to the archaic brew, and I would love to try it.
No, they don't. Heroin vapors and beer foam are not even remotely similar, and I doubt many junkies drink liquid heroin. Equating the responsible enjoyment of a truly interesting, historical, fine craft beer with illegal drug abuse is not funny. Not even when you put a:) after it.
It is going into production, apparently. Dogfish Head beers are available at all of the beer stores that stock micros and even many supermarkets in my part of Ohio. They don't all carry the full line, but the main varieties and some of the seasonals are pretty easy to find. Not sure if they have gone national, but they do distribute widely in the US, at least. The 90 Minute IPA is fantastic and a must try.
You misquoted, I think. It should probably be: Give a man Slackware, and he'll go right back to Microsoft. Good lord those were terrible experiences the two or three times I tried Slasckware. Granted, that was years ago, and I'm sure it's come a long way.
Or: Give a man Linux Mint and he can get shit done without having to worry about learning every last detail about how and why his expensive tool occasionally works and usually doesn't work; it just works.
I forgot: if you want them to just STFU and approve your plan, throw in as many pointless technical specifications as possible: the CPU's corporate codename, bus speed, manufacturing process, etc., and compare them to what you have now rather than anything else currently on the market - bigger numbers always win, even if they have no idea what they all mean or whether or not they are entirely relevant.
Why should C-level execs care about what model processor is used in their computers?
They shouldn't, but they do. Middle management (that's what a C-level executive used to be called, right?) likes to think they know everything about everything, but they are influenced by all of the same marketing hype that fools the average consumer - they think they need something based on fancy names, rather than taking a more practical approach. If the machines in question are for general business use, this talk of performance optimization and dedicating a lot of time to processor selection is a complete waste of time. Everyone I've ever upgraded a computer for asks about the "chip" first, then about "memory" so they can have more room for their music files that take up 30% of their hard drive, and this sounds lnoittle different.
With people like this, you should just make your recommendation, tell them it is the most cost-efficient solution (mid-level processor from the company with the best bid), wait for them to attempt to mull it over, then be proud that they trust your expertise. Do your job, and don't stress too much about it. If anything, you could probably phone this one in.
So now we're supposed to take something seriously when the cited source is Fox News? Way back in the 1980's, this would have been like believing what was published by The National Enquirer, The Star, and Penthouse Letters.
Let me prefix my comment with this: I fully support linux development and am glad to see any attempts to produce "alternative" operating systems, and I wish the developers luck
Now, why would they choose the name Peppermint OS One, which is sure to cause confusion? The reason I ask is because there are many, many other English words available, while Peppermint is an awful lot like Mint. This is a problem for Peppermint OS One (unless they would like it shortened to POO, which appears to be appropriate), since Linux Mint, or simply Mint, has been around for several years now, with the forthcoming version 9 likely to be released next week. Mint strives to be a more polished, more complete derivative of Ubuntu, and it really delivers. Mint has been my main OS for everything for over two years now, and is the first OS I can say I've ever really liked (dating back as far as MSDOS 3 or so).
Is this an attempt by POO to ride the coattails of Mint, or just a very poor but innocent choice? Mint has gained wide-spread notoriety among linux enthusiasts, and currently receives the second or third most hits on Distrowatch.com, ahead of such venerable distros as Debian, Mandriva, Slackware and OpenSUSE, and running neck and neck with Fedora, to trail only Ubuntu. Surely the POO developers had to be aware of its existence. And after reading the review of POO, and failing to find it even listed on Distrowatch, I have not found any compelling reason to try it. Looks similar to gOS, but not as nice looking or as well integrated. I'll stick to Mint, hold the pepper.
This figure of $51 billion is highly inaccurate and greatly over-inflated, though to what degree no one can say. Of course it is assumed that every case of "piracy" is akin to theft or a lost sale. This is far from the truth. Many illegal downloads (software especially, but also movies, music, etc.) are done simply to test the software, see if it will run properly one a given system, or play nice with other software. Quite often it does not meet the installer's needs, deemed to be crap, and is discarded immediately. This is only necessary because there is no legitimate way to test these things before purchasing, or to get a refund for software that just plain sucks. This would not be acceptable policy for toasters, sweatshirts, or automobiles. Even $500,000 homes come with warranties and guarantees that they will turn out to work as advertised.
One most also consider the cost of software. If piracy were not technically possible (because of working DRM, or for whatever other reason), it would still be very wrong to assume that every illegal download is the same as a lost sale. In my youth I downloaded lots of things I couldn't afford; if I could not have downloaded Photoshop 2.5, AutoCAD 12, Windows 95, Doom II, etc., I still would not have bought them because I couldn't afford to do so - I would have made do without them, like most downloaders. So in reality, most of my downloads actually cost developers/sellers nothing, since I did not steal a physical product and they did not actually lose a sale at all. I can not claim that no downloads result in lost sales, but the figure of $51 billion is highly unrealistic.
You are mistaken: one beaver family indeed initiated the project, but much of the actual work was done by several male beavers who crossed the southern border illegally looking for work. Of course they get no credit for their work.
What is this "system restore?" I switched to Linux Mint years ago and have never since needed to "restore" my system. Worst case scenario, I've had to close an unresponsive windows, and reboot just for good measure. Do I need this restore partition thingie? I backup once in a while but have never needed it. I reboot once every month or two, just to be safe. Will my system be more stable and secure from virusess if I upgrade to the latest and greatest windose?
That judge better keep track of what his (or her, I didn't RTFA yet) kids are doing online. This is the kind of ruling that can come back to haunt them. Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.
Yeah, file-sharing has become kind of like speeding when not in heavy traffic, or smoking pot in California - it may be technically illegal, but tons and tons of people do it on a small scale without profiting much from it or causing any major, immediate harm to their neighbors, so it is generally ignored, and there is no peer pressure not to. Once in a while someone gets in trouble for these things, but most of the time most people don't, and few people prioritize the respective laws very highly. The times they have'a changed, and legality does not necessarily define social acceptability. The difference here is that the RIAA/MPAA pack it in and head for the hills when they see a challenge, unlike the Feds in a lil' ol' weed case, because precedent is a major concern for Big Media, while federal law is pretty clear.
One reason a lot of us keep giving the cable company full access to our bank accounts (Time Warner in my case) is simply the ease. I'm in my mid-thirties and don't watch nearly as much TV as when I was growing up, and most of what I do watch can be found in various places online. However, finding them and keeping up with what is current or next to be watched is no simple matter, and certainly not as easy as subscribing to a podcast. This turns some of us off, and the need to locate everything is like the opposite of a DVR, in terms of convenience. Cable is much easier to manage, even with my crappy-ass Scientific Atlanta 8240HDC box (I hate you with a passion! Was your interface designed in 1954 by a monkey trained to be a civil engineer?) and Time Warner's inherent crappiness.
Then there's the matter of sports. Yes, I said that on slashdot. Seriously. A lot of us (cable/satellite subscribers, not/. readers) are into sports, which pretty much need to be viewed live, or at least nearly so, to prevent spoilers. My local MLB team has its own channel, the NBA team has a regional Fox Sports channel, and the college football team I follow has a lot of games on ESPN and the stupid BIG Ten "network". Finding these games online in HD and for cheap/free is nearly impossible. I concede that our NFL team is usually broadcast over the air, though that requires a pretty decent antenna at my outlying location, which is too much considering the only other things I like on broadcast TV are The Office and the occasional peek at Conan O'brien or Jimmy Fallon. OTA digital HDTV sucks, in my experience. Not putting a tower up for that, so I continue to be gouged for cable. And AT&T is the local Bell, with U-Verse available in adjacent counties, though they can't even tell me when it might be deployed here, so their version of the standard rip-off is not even an option. Cable it is! *ewwwww*
Well, as most companies that have to build a new datacenter will tell you. It's cheaper to generate heat than cold. So I'd go for cold containment.
I agree - contain the cold to keep it cold (keeping heat out of that area, really). Cooling works not by "adding cold" but by removing heat, and the retired HVAC engineer I know (heating and cooling, not hack/virus/anarchy/carding) insists that cooling always requires more effort and care than heating. He did a lot of work for big clients that include Anheuser-Busch, Frito Lay, teh Detroit Silverdome, etc., so I trust him. Let the hot side disperse heat out wherever else it pleases, assuming you are dealing more with a problem of excess heat than heating human-occupied space.
In a modern datacenter, it seems like a no-brainer to have some sort of a system to recover the considerable waste heat that is generated, especially when the location necessitates heating in the colder months. There is certainly the initial cost to consider, but reduced utility bills can make up for this before long, plus there's the green, carbon, blah blah blah corporate talking points you'll have at your disposal. I love the idea of locating datacenters in places like Finland, Scandinavia, and Canada. Efficiency should be considered in all aspects of good datacenter design, whether you are building from the ground up or looking to update things. Separating hot/cold is a good, cheap, very easy start, and some companies have taken that and really began to expand upon it.
To be fair flash is a piece of shit on all platforms. It only exists because it makes creating content brain dead easy.
Very fair, and true. Flash sucks, but some sites really suck with browsers that don't support it, or don't work at all. I'd prefer not to see it anywhere, but I like having the option to have Android support, at least. The good news I wasn't expecting: this will supposedly run on Android 1.5 and up, meaning those of us with "old school" G1s running 1.6 Donut can actually try it, which I wasn't expecting.
However, you should be aware of the middle man, and in using it you are implicitly trusting them with everything you do through them, and some might have a problem with that.
Sounds interesting, I'll probably try it whenever I need flash support for something, and use my standard browser the rest of the time when I don't.
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses
Ah yea, the old "everyone else was doing it, too" defense. Committing heinously evil crimes, then using a global organization to cover it up, can not be excused simply because someone else who is not a part of your organization committed the same crimes. Every time a representative of the oh-so holy Church gets on the radio or on CNN to defend their criminal organization, they feel compelled to mention that Catholic priests are not the only people who rape kids, which completely misses the point. That would be very funny, if this were a topic where humor could ever be found. And if I were to rape a bunch of kids, or even one, at my job, I would not be given new job duties or shipped to a different location - I'd go to prison. My employer, and most international employers, would never even consider covering up things like this instead of immediately reporting criminals to law enforcement. The Roman Cathnolic Church did this, many times.
If the Vatican had a PR department, it would surly be accused of attempting to cover-up further wrongdoings of individuals trusted by the Holy See.
For all intents and purposes, the Vatican does have PR staff - they call them priests of local parishes, mainly - and they have done quite a bit to cover up all sorts of things, including their cover-ups.
They're against regulation and big government, unless their own monetary interests are at risk. We're talking about casino owners and big shots, who are greatly threatened by competition. We saw evidence of this recently in Ohio where casino gambling was legalized by way of a constitutional amendment. Casino owners in other states (Republicans) were among the bigger donors to proxy organizations who fought the legalization. It makes sense: once three or four casinos are built, in all corners of the state, Casinos such as those in West Virginia, Pennyslvania,and Indiana should take a huge hit, since a large proportion of their victims, I mean customers, are from Ohio. Legal online gambling would do much the same thing, but across the country. The only experience can not replicate the thrill of winning big in an actual casino environment, but how many people are really going to make a big, expensive trip to a "resort" in Cleveland?
True conservatives (i.e. Republicans) are also against gambling (or at least expanding it) for philosophical reasons. This conflicts with the desire to limit regulation, but it stems from traditional conservative beliefs. Gambling is considered a dirty vice, much like drinking and prostitution, to some. This could be seen like putting a bar or liquor store on every corner (which we practically have in Ohio already) - a little bit of existing gambling or drinking can be dealt with, but we don't want or need more of it.
Personally, I have mixed feelings. Further legalization of gambling does not appear to have any merits other than tax revenue, and the people that do it the most are too often those who can least afford it. But online gambling already exists, albeit in a shadier fashion than legalization would allow, and who should the current casino operators and state lotteries have total control? Would any new companies benefit, or would casino whores just shift their focus? There's no truly good answer to any of this.
And one or more planes went down due to the ash cloud? It just wasn't a risk worth taking. Branson is being
Do not question Richard Branson, because HE'S RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON!!! Nevermind that the technical aspects of modern turbofan engines are not his area of expertise, all men want to live his life. His cavalier attitude may not be appropriate when arcane details of air safety are concerned, but no one cares, because he's RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON. No, it is not law that RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON's name is required to be typed in all CAPS, nor that his real middle name (FUCKING) be used at all times, but it damn well should be. I swear I'm dead serious.
One thing Chuck Norris and I have in common: Even Chuck Norris wants to party with RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON.
Sadly, you've got a point. I would love a 300dpi display, and I think people would come around if they saw the potential, but until the OS and content can maximize that potential the manufacturers won't be motivated.
Most people will not "come around" any time soon, or ever, because they don't know and don't care anything about the specifics of LCD monitors. For the vast majority of computer users, a 20"+ "flat screen" available for $150 or less is perfectly desirable, without them knowing the resolution. The fact is, most all modern displays are quite usable for 95% of what people do - email, browser, Office, Flash, games, Blueray, etc., so there is no need for them to educate themselves and seek out (or pay for) more advanced technologies.
Back in the "old" days, an upgrade from say, 640x480 to 1024x768 and a faster refresh rate, made a very obvious difference. 300dpi would certainly look nice to anyone, but there is little demand for LCDs much better than the current mass-market variety, meaning evolution will probably be slow. For professionals, the anti aliasing tricks may not be ideal, but they work. You'll get it, but it will be expensive. I'd love a flying car too, but it would be complete overkill for what I do, and so ridiculously expensive that I could not even begin to justify buying one, thus progress on these is very slow. Moore's law clearly doesn't apply to the evolution of everything.
Where I live in the middle of a city of about 60,000, it might as well be a giant trailer park for all the service we get here.
Hey, you insensitive city-slicker, nowadays we say "mobile home neighborhood." Don't be tryin ta keep us down with yer "trail park" junk. Ya'll can keep ya'll's high-rise apartments, wiel we be OWNIN are double-wide son. Yall just gel-us cus we get the same computer internet AND EBAY plus we can park the rig rite next too are door. Step here bringin that and well get the 12 gauge oh wait you cant cus the bus dont come outside downtown!!! (we gots cable internet anyway plus 350 channils and free cheez. 350 channils i love America!!!!)
PS we got the new CRAIGSLIST to!!!!!!!!
If you don't file a bug report when using stable software and then complain on a geek site, you should be banned from using it!
Are you mad? It has already been tested and confirmed to be stable. If it doesn't work for me at this point, I am a customer who will vote with my feet, meaning I will try something else. "Stable" means it works, and if stable doesn't work, it is not the end user's obligation to fix it. I want stable things that work, not to debug crap that doesn't work. That is not my job, as a consumer. If I sell you a "market-ready" car that secretly can't exceed 40 mph, is it your fault for buying it, and are you obligated to report to me that it doesn't work? I'd be pissed-off if I were you, but it wouldn't be your responsibility to make future versions of the product work as you desire.
If knowing something was broken meant I was required to help fix it, I'd never get anything else done besides fixing other people's crappy products.
Hmm, Google Chrome already handles plugins this way, but one flash-heavy site I know delivers a lot of streaming video and absolutely will crash either Firefox or Chrome in linux (I use Mint, mainly) without fail, if given enough time, Gnome or KDE. Crash as in the entire browser becomes unresponsive and must force-close. After it did this to Firefox a few times I tried Chrome, with the same result. Everything will be fine for a few minutes, sometimes up to an hour or so, then the whole browser will die. Haven't tried IE, tried Firefox with Windows 7 and had the same thing happen. I will certainly look into anything that prevents crashes for Firefox, since I strongly prefer it to every other browser I've tried, since most of the time it works perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's no grain in it, it's not beer. Since the primary carbohydrate source in it is honey, it's mean - honey wine.
I don't know how nice this mead is, but you're certainly right that it is not beer.
It's kinda cool, but it's pretty much worthless and meaningless from a historical and scientific standpoint.
Agreed again. It is impossible to duplicate an ancient recipe unless we know for sure that we can use the exact same ingredients and utilize the same preparation methods. This is cool though, and perhaps at least somewhat similar to the archaic brew, and I would love to try it.
Heroin users call that chasing the dragon :)
:) after it.
No, they don't. Heroin vapors and beer foam are not even remotely similar, and I doubt many junkies drink liquid heroin. Equating the responsible enjoyment of a truly interesting, historical, fine craft beer with illegal drug abuse is not funny. Not even when you put a
It is going into production, apparently. Dogfish Head beers are available at all of the beer stores that stock micros and even many supermarkets in my part of Ohio. They don't all carry the full line, but the main varieties and some of the seasonals are pretty easy to find. Not sure if they have gone national, but they do distribute widely in the US, at least. The 90 Minute IPA is fantastic and a must try.
But give a man Slackware, and he'll learn Linux.
You misquoted, I think. It should probably be: Give a man Slackware, and he'll go right back to Microsoft. Good lord those were terrible experiences the two or three times I tried Slasckware. Granted, that was years ago, and I'm sure it's come a long way.
Or: Give a man Linux Mint and he can get shit done without having to worry about learning every last detail about how and why his expensive tool occasionally works and usually doesn't work; it just works.
I forgot: if you want them to just STFU and approve your plan, throw in as many pointless technical specifications as possible: the CPU's corporate codename, bus speed, manufacturing process, etc., and compare them to what you have now rather than anything else currently on the market - bigger numbers always win, even if they have no idea what they all mean or whether or not they are entirely relevant.
Why should C-level execs care about what model processor is used in their computers?
They shouldn't, but they do. Middle management (that's what a C-level executive used to be called, right?) likes to think they know everything about everything, but they are influenced by all of the same marketing hype that fools the average consumer - they think they need something based on fancy names, rather than taking a more practical approach. If the machines in question are for general business use, this talk of performance optimization and dedicating a lot of time to processor selection is a complete waste of time. Everyone I've ever upgraded a computer for asks about the "chip" first, then about "memory" so they can have more room for their music files that take up 30% of their hard drive, and this sounds lnoittle different.
With people like this, you should just make your recommendation, tell them it is the most cost-efficient solution (mid-level processor from the company with the best bid), wait for them to attempt to mull it over, then be proud that they trust your expertise. Do your job, and don't stress too much about it. If anything, you could probably phone this one in.
So now we're supposed to take something seriously when the cited source is Fox News? Way back in the 1980's, this would have been like believing what was published by The National Enquirer, The Star, and Penthouse Letters.
Let me prefix my comment with this: I fully support linux development and am glad to see any attempts to produce "alternative" operating systems, and I wish the developers luck
Now, why would they choose the name Peppermint OS One, which is sure to cause confusion? The reason I ask is because there are many, many other English words available, while Peppermint is an awful lot like Mint. This is a problem for Peppermint OS One (unless they would like it shortened to POO, which appears to be appropriate), since Linux Mint, or simply Mint, has been around for several years now, with the forthcoming version 9 likely to be released next week. Mint strives to be a more polished, more complete derivative of Ubuntu, and it really delivers. Mint has been my main OS for everything for over two years now, and is the first OS I can say I've ever really liked (dating back as far as MSDOS 3 or so).
Is this an attempt by POO to ride the coattails of Mint, or just a very poor but innocent choice? Mint has gained wide-spread notoriety among linux enthusiasts, and currently receives the second or third most hits on Distrowatch.com, ahead of such venerable distros as Debian, Mandriva, Slackware and OpenSUSE, and running neck and neck with Fedora, to trail only Ubuntu. Surely the POO developers had to be aware of its existence. And after reading the review of POO, and failing to find it even listed on Distrowatch, I have not found any compelling reason to try it. Looks similar to gOS, but not as nice looking or as well integrated. I'll stick to Mint, hold the pepper.
This figure of $51 billion is highly inaccurate and greatly over-inflated, though to what degree no one can say. Of course it is assumed that every case of "piracy" is akin to theft or a lost sale. This is far from the truth. Many illegal downloads (software especially, but also movies, music, etc.) are done simply to test the software, see if it will run properly one a given system, or play nice with other software. Quite often it does not meet the installer's needs, deemed to be crap, and is discarded immediately. This is only necessary because there is no legitimate way to test these things before purchasing, or to get a refund for software that just plain sucks. This would not be acceptable policy for toasters, sweatshirts, or automobiles. Even $500,000 homes come with warranties and guarantees that they will turn out to work as advertised.
One most also consider the cost of software. If piracy were not technically possible (because of working DRM, or for whatever other reason), it would still be very wrong to assume that every illegal download is the same as a lost sale. In my youth I downloaded lots of things I couldn't afford; if I could not have downloaded Photoshop 2.5, AutoCAD 12, Windows 95, Doom II, etc., I still would not have bought them because I couldn't afford to do so - I would have made do without them, like most downloaders. So in reality, most of my downloads actually cost developers/sellers nothing, since I did not steal a physical product and they did not actually lose a sale at all. I can not claim that no downloads result in lost sales, but the figure of $51 billion is highly unrealistic.
You are mistaken: one beaver family indeed initiated the project, but much of the actual work was done by several male beavers who crossed the southern border illegally looking for work. Of course they get no credit for their work.
How many fonts do you need?
What is this "system restore?" I switched to Linux Mint years ago and have never since needed to "restore" my system. Worst case scenario, I've had to close an unresponsive windows, and reboot just for good measure. Do I need this restore partition thingie? I backup once in a while but have never needed it. I reboot once every month or two, just to be safe. Will my system be more stable and secure from virusess if I upgrade to the latest and greatest windose?
That judge better keep track of what his (or her, I didn't RTFA yet) kids are doing online. This is the kind of ruling that can come back to haunt them. Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.
Yeah, file-sharing has become kind of like speeding when not in heavy traffic, or smoking pot in California - it may be technically illegal, but tons and tons of people do it on a small scale without profiting much from it or causing any major, immediate harm to their neighbors, so it is generally ignored, and there is no peer pressure not to. Once in a while someone gets in trouble for these things, but most of the time most people don't, and few people prioritize the respective laws very highly. The times they have'a changed, and legality does not necessarily define social acceptability. The difference here is that the RIAA/MPAA pack it in and head for the hills when they see a challenge, unlike the Feds in a lil' ol' weed case, because precedent is a major concern for Big Media, while federal law is pretty clear.
One reason a lot of us keep giving the cable company full access to our bank accounts (Time Warner in my case) is simply the ease. I'm in my mid-thirties and don't watch nearly as much TV as when I was growing up, and most of what I do watch can be found in various places online. However, finding them and keeping up with what is current or next to be watched is no simple matter, and certainly not as easy as subscribing to a podcast. This turns some of us off, and the need to locate everything is like the opposite of a DVR, in terms of convenience. Cable is much easier to manage, even with my crappy-ass Scientific Atlanta 8240HDC box (I hate you with a passion! Was your interface designed in 1954 by a monkey trained to be a civil engineer?) and Time Warner's inherent crappiness.
/. readers) are into sports, which pretty much need to be viewed live, or at least nearly so, to prevent spoilers. My local MLB team has its own channel, the NBA team has a regional Fox Sports channel, and the college football team I follow has a lot of games on ESPN and the stupid BIG Ten "network". Finding these games online in HD and for cheap/free is nearly impossible. I concede that our NFL team is usually broadcast over the air, though that requires a pretty decent antenna at my outlying location, which is too much considering the only other things I like on broadcast TV are The Office and the occasional peek at Conan O'brien or Jimmy Fallon. OTA digital HDTV sucks, in my experience. Not putting a tower up for that, so I continue to be gouged for cable. And AT&T is the local Bell, with U-Verse available in adjacent counties, though they can't even tell me when it might be deployed here, so their version of the standard rip-off is not even an option. Cable it is! *ewwwww*
Then there's the matter of sports. Yes, I said that on slashdot. Seriously. A lot of us (cable/satellite subscribers, not
Well, as most companies that have to build a new datacenter will tell you. It's cheaper to generate heat than cold. So I'd go for cold containment.
I agree - contain the cold to keep it cold (keeping heat out of that area, really). Cooling works not by "adding cold" but by removing heat, and the retired HVAC engineer I know (heating and cooling, not hack/virus/anarchy/carding) insists that cooling always requires more effort and care than heating. He did a lot of work for big clients that include Anheuser-Busch, Frito Lay, teh Detroit Silverdome, etc., so I trust him. Let the hot side disperse heat out wherever else it pleases, assuming you are dealing more with a problem of excess heat than heating human-occupied space.
In a modern datacenter, it seems like a no-brainer to have some sort of a system to recover the considerable waste heat that is generated, especially when the location necessitates heating in the colder months. There is certainly the initial cost to consider, but reduced utility bills can make up for this before long, plus there's the green, carbon, blah blah blah corporate talking points you'll have at your disposal. I love the idea of locating datacenters in places like Finland, Scandinavia, and Canada. Efficiency should be considered in all aspects of good datacenter design, whether you are building from the ground up or looking to update things. Separating hot/cold is a good, cheap, very easy start, and some companies have taken that and really began to expand upon it.
To be fair flash is a piece of shit on all platforms. It only exists because it makes creating content brain dead easy.
Very fair, and true. Flash sucks, but some sites really suck with browsers that don't support it, or don't work at all. I'd prefer not to see it anywhere, but I like having the option to have Android support, at least. The good news I wasn't expecting: this will supposedly run on Android 1.5 and up, meaning those of us with "old school" G1s running 1.6 Donut can actually try it, which I wasn't expecting.
However, you should be aware of the middle man, and in using it you are implicitly trusting them with everything you do through them, and some might have a problem with that.
Sounds interesting, I'll probably try it whenever I need flash support for something, and use my standard browser the rest of the time when I don't.
The Catholic church, as far as I know, doesn't have a monopoly on abuses
Ah yea, the old "everyone else was doing it, too" defense. Committing heinously evil crimes, then using a global organization to cover it up, can not be excused simply because someone else who is not a part of your organization committed the same crimes. Every time a representative of the oh-so holy Church gets on the radio or on CNN to defend their criminal organization, they feel compelled to mention that Catholic priests are not the only people who rape kids, which completely misses the point. That would be very funny, if this were a topic where humor could ever be found. And if I were to rape a bunch of kids, or even one, at my job, I would not be given new job duties or shipped to a different location - I'd go to prison. My employer, and most international employers, would never even consider covering up things like this instead of immediately reporting criminals to law enforcement. The Roman Cathnolic Church did this, many times.
If the Vatican had a PR department, it would surly be accused of attempting to cover-up further wrongdoings of individuals trusted by the Holy See.
For all intents and purposes, the Vatican does have PR staff - they call them priests of local parishes, mainly - and they have done quite a bit to cover up all sorts of things, including their cover-ups.
why "Republicans" are against this??
They're against regulation and big government, unless their own monetary interests are at risk. We're talking about casino owners and big shots, who are greatly threatened by competition. We saw evidence of this recently in Ohio where casino gambling was legalized by way of a constitutional amendment. Casino owners in other states (Republicans) were among the bigger donors to proxy organizations who fought the legalization. It makes sense: once three or four casinos are built, in all corners of the state, Casinos such as those in West Virginia, Pennyslvania,and Indiana should take a huge hit, since a large proportion of their victims, I mean customers, are from Ohio. Legal online gambling would do much the same thing, but across the country. The only experience can not replicate the thrill of winning big in an actual casino environment, but how many people are really going to make a big, expensive trip to a "resort" in Cleveland?
True conservatives (i.e. Republicans) are also against gambling (or at least expanding it) for philosophical reasons. This conflicts with the desire to limit regulation, but it stems from traditional conservative beliefs. Gambling is considered a dirty vice, much like drinking and prostitution, to some. This could be seen like putting a bar or liquor store on every corner (which we practically have in Ohio already) - a little bit of existing gambling or drinking can be dealt with, but we don't want or need more of it.
Personally, I have mixed feelings. Further legalization of gambling does not appear to have any merits other than tax revenue, and the people that do it the most are too often those who can least afford it. But online gambling already exists, albeit in a shadier fashion than legalization would allow, and who should the current casino operators and state lotteries have total control? Would any new companies benefit, or would casino whores just shift their focus? There's no truly good answer to any of this.
And one or more planes went down due to the ash cloud? It just wasn't a risk worth taking. Branson is being
Do not question Richard Branson, because HE'S RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON!!! Nevermind that the technical aspects of modern turbofan engines are not his area of expertise, all men want to live his life. His cavalier attitude may not be appropriate when arcane details of air safety are concerned, but no one cares, because he's RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON. No, it is not law that RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON's name is required to be typed in all CAPS, nor that his real middle name (FUCKING) be used at all times, but it damn well should be. I swear I'm dead serious.
One thing Chuck Norris and I have in common: Even Chuck Norris wants to party with RICHARD FUCKING BRANSON.
Sadly, you've got a point. I would love a 300dpi display, and I think people would come around if they saw the potential, but until the OS and content can maximize that potential the manufacturers won't be motivated.
Most people will not "come around" any time soon, or ever, because they don't know and don't care anything about the specifics of LCD monitors. For the vast majority of computer users, a 20"+ "flat screen" available for $150 or less is perfectly desirable, without them knowing the resolution. The fact is, most all modern displays are quite usable for 95% of what people do - email, browser, Office, Flash, games, Blueray, etc., so there is no need for them to educate themselves and seek out (or pay for) more advanced technologies.
Back in the "old" days, an upgrade from say, 640x480 to 1024x768 and a faster refresh rate, made a very obvious difference. 300dpi would certainly look nice to anyone, but there is little demand for LCDs much better than the current mass-market variety, meaning evolution will probably be slow. For professionals, the anti aliasing tricks may not be ideal, but they work. You'll get it, but it will be expensive. I'd love a flying car too, but it would be complete overkill for what I do, and so ridiculously expensive that I could not even begin to justify buying one, thus progress on these is very slow. Moore's law clearly doesn't apply to the evolution of everything.
"Wow, can she really wear shorts that sh-" **CRASH**
Where I live in the middle of a city of about 60,000, it might as well be a giant trailer park for all the service we get here.
Hey, you insensitive city-slicker, nowadays we say "mobile home neighborhood." Don't be tryin ta keep us down with yer "trail park" junk. Ya'll can keep ya'll's high-rise apartments, wiel we be OWNIN are double-wide son. Yall just gel-us cus we get the same computer internet AND EBAY plus we can park the rig rite next too are door. Step here bringin that and well get the 12 gauge oh wait you cant cus the bus dont come outside downtown!!! (we gots cable internet anyway plus 350 channils and free cheez. 350 channils i love America!!!!)
PS we got the new CRAIGSLIST to!!!!!!!!
If you don't file a bug report when using stable software and then complain on a geek site, you should be banned from using it!
Are you mad? It has already been tested and confirmed to be stable. If it doesn't work for me at this point, I am a customer who will vote with my feet, meaning I will try something else. "Stable" means it works, and if stable doesn't work, it is not the end user's obligation to fix it. I want stable things that work, not to debug crap that doesn't work. That is not my job, as a consumer. If I sell you a "market-ready" car that secretly can't exceed 40 mph, is it your fault for buying it, and are you obligated to report to me that it doesn't work? I'd be pissed-off if I were you, but it wouldn't be your responsibility to make future versions of the product work as you desire.
If knowing something was broken meant I was required to help fix it, I'd never get anything else done besides fixing other people's crappy products.
Hmm, Google Chrome already handles plugins this way, but one flash-heavy site I know delivers a lot of streaming video and absolutely will crash either Firefox or Chrome in linux (I use Mint, mainly) without fail, if given enough time, Gnome or KDE. Crash as in the entire browser becomes unresponsive and must force-close. After it did this to Firefox a few times I tried Chrome, with the same result. Everything will be fine for a few minutes, sometimes up to an hour or so, then the whole browser will die. Haven't tried IE, tried Firefox with Windows 7 and had the same thing happen. I will certainly look into anything that prevents crashes for Firefox, since I strongly prefer it to every other browser I've tried, since most of the time it works perfectly.