Yeah just like not being exactly right about the location of Devil's tower, you aren't exactly right about many of your "facts" in your post. Close enoght to making it not worth pointing each one out one by one. Kind of like when Grandpa remembers back and it slowly morphs into something still good but slightly different. Facts be damn full speed ahead.
28k max memory if it was on a floppy since you had the DOS overhead. The only way to use all 32k was to have the program on a cartridge. Also for something like BASIC you needed to leave room for user defined variables and other data stored in RAM during execution.
Only because he has given $30 billion to charity. So you are right that he is not the richest. He voluntarily has taken himself from first place and has moved himself to third place for the benefit of millions of people (mostly children) across the wrold.
The prices on them keep going up. I wouldn't wait if I were you. There are a lot of retro hardware accessories that will dry up. I mean you are going to want to hook up a MFM Seagate ST-225 20MB hard drive right?
Once you get SpartaDos X and R-Time 8 cartridges installed you will be all set. The 20MB drive should handle your library. If you are using the 810 Drive with 90 KB capacity you should be able to store thousands of disks. A big collection of software might be 200 or so disks (15 MB or so but who's counting.) Since most games are really only 30 KB, you'll have plenty of room on the hard drive.
You'll probably want to get some 64 KB ram chips and solder them piggy back on the existing ram. Bend up the leads on the chips and cut one of the legs on the CPU. Wire it all up with another IC on a PCB board and you have 256 KB ram disk.
Would you open the laptop to prove there wasn't kiddie porn on it only to have them find evidence of another crime? In this country you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself.
Enemy combatants in time of war are not protected by the US Constitution. I can just see a Marine whipping out his Miranda card before taking a wounded soldier into "custody." It's so absurd I am smiling while I type it.
I am an retired Army officer, upper middle class American, politcally conservative, middle aged male. Not much chance of getting modded up in the first place. I might as well forget about the Karma and call it like I see it.
I have seen pictures of large solar panel arrays installed in the desert. Not one of them included the apparent sterilization of all life in the area. Where did you come up with 20,000 sq mi and where did you come up with destroying all plants in the area?
If that is your concept of what will happen with installation of solar panels then I do not subscribe to it. Basically what you are saying is that there is no hope. No matter what solution is put forth the environmental impact is unacceptable.
Think of that when a band of starving marauders takes everything you own by gun point. Think of it one last time when they come back to eat you.
Actually I am from Colorado and I love the desert. However, my point when less literally taken is that we have some hard choices coming up ahead and we have to weigh the ridiculous demands of fringe environmentalists against a massive die off of the human race.
When I got the flyer from the electric company it said it would only happen for three or four hours ten or so day s pure year. I could save a whooppping 3%, nearly $75 per year. I was so underwhelmed with the cost benefit analysis that the brochure went directly into the trash.
Who cares about scrub brush? There will always be plenty of tumble weeds. Let's see on one hand we have loss of tumble weed habitat and on the other we have the death of millions to billions of humans due to famine. Let me think about that one and get back to you.
Ridiculous. Spoken by someone who appears to never have been in the military. Or at least someone who didn't really "get it" while he was in.
Of course you need to treat them different. How else are you going to get the best and brightest? There has to be an incentive for the General to stay in the Army rather than become the CEO of some firm that sells equipment and services to the military.
Troops rarely begrudge perks offered to flag officers if he is squared away. In fact they will lay down their life based on his word. If they don't trust him then they will be less likely to perform and he won't be there long anyway.
Leaders are killed in combat continually. The ratio may be less but that is the nature of warfare. The resources they need to control the battle are expensive and cannot be risked by placing them on the front line. These assets are relatively immobile and must be protected by distance from contact with the enemy in order to provide reaction time to move when threatened.
So now you know a little more about how it really works instead of some half baked ideas of why "the military just sucks."
More information is typically better. This doesn't soumd like it would even come close to information overload. Highly trained military pilots have a tremendous ammount of information in their HUD. This sounds like a good idea to me.
...that posters still start their sentence in the subject and then use ellipses to tie it to the sentence fragment in the post. I will admit it was cool the first four or five hundred times it was done. Looking at the original poster's UID he probably invented the technique. Sadly, it is time to put this practice to rest.
Vista and XP performance figures are so similar that it doesn't matter. Vista has more features and is more stable. It runs on more hardware than XP and is just plain better. It has also sold more copies than any other version of Windows.
It was panned widely by the press and was not a compelling enough upgrade for the corporate world. There are also hardware cycles to consider. The impact of Y2k on Vista sales is not trivial. That was a forced hardware upgrade that condensed many corporate equipment aquisition timelines making for a much more volatile aquisiton schedule. Vista came a little too late, which probably is Microsoft's fault.
All in all it is no where near the disaster that some want it to be.
What do you base your Microsoft stock analysis on? Let me help you, Microsoft has beat Sun, Redhat and Novell (during the period that Redhat has been public.) What is it about Microsoft that is supposed to make the stockholders unhappy?
The Internet is a wonderful tool for research. You could try using it or you could continue to let your biases influence your ability to form rational opinions.
If you were a stockholder then you would have done better than almost everyone else in tech. Also, you would have one vote per share which is probably not enough to get Ballmer releived (since his numbers have been awesome you probably wouldn't garner too much support.)
Believe it or not I agree with almost everything you say.
I think resource management is best left to private enterprise based on capitalist fundamentals. I will also say that a hybrid socialist and capitalist structure can not efficiently function. That is the real problem in the delivery of many social services in the US.
As far as I am concerned health care is a service to be purchased like any other. In a capitalist construct that delivery method works perfectly and no other method is as fair. If one cannot afford health care than one does without. Healthier is not a constitutionally protected right. The only thing our founding fathers guarenteed us is freedom and the right of a chance for success.
I am resigned to the fact that someone will always have a better car than me, a better house than me, and better health care than me. I will strive to work and provide for myself within the limits of my abilities, and desires.
I will play the cards I've been dealt and not expect someone else to pick up the slack. I don't want a handout from anyone.
Well it was mostly tongue in cheek but since you took it so literally let's focus on the real issue. Inappropriate levels of fear about assuming normal amounts of risk and responsibility is a societal problem that I am trying to identify for the reader.
"Too safe" is not a meaningless phrase. Whether or not they agree with me, most people can infer the meaning of the main point of my previous post. To clarify, something is "too safe" when the cost benefit analysis shows that attaining a certain "level of safety" is unreasonable. In regards to your statement, is is incorrect. There are levels of risk that stratify the continuum of safety. Certain risk levels will be considered "safe" by some and not by others.
Since the purpose of this forum is to entertain and inform, I would like to say that the level of safety that you desire would be considered not cost effective in terms of the level of sacrifice made in resources and loss of individual freedom.
Being too literal is another sign suggestive of the compulsive behavior I alluded to previously. In this case another sign of overly concrete thinking is the inability of being able to see that a certain activity might not hold the same "level of danger" for all who undertake it.
On my 80 minute commute from work I like to use the time to catch up with friends and family by telephone. Three quarters of the driving is done on Interstate highways in rural Colorado. I pass a car once every 5 or 10 minutes during peak times. Using the phone during this drive is not a hindrance in any way. I have a Bluetooth phone with voice activated dialing not because it is safer but because I want one.
So to sum it up you are more fearful when you drive than I am. Because you are not as confident in your driving abilities you wisely choose to limit yourself more than the average driver does. Let's just leave it at that for now.
Heh, I thought you were serious for a minute. I get it. What makes it funny is the fact that no normal person would suggest that radios be banned from automobiles.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah just like not being exactly right about the location of Devil's tower, you aren't exactly right about many of your "facts" in your post. Close enoght to making it not worth pointing each one out one by one. Kind of like when Grandpa remembers back and it slowly morphs into something still good but slightly different. Facts be damn full speed ahead.
28k max memory if it was on a floppy since you had the DOS overhead. The only way to use all 32k was to have the program on a cartridge. Also for something like BASIC you needed to leave room for user defined variables and other data stored in RAM during execution.
Only because he has given $30 billion to charity. So you are right that he is not the richest. He voluntarily has taken himself from first place and has moved himself to third place for the benefit of millions of people (mostly children) across the wrold.
The prices on them keep going up. I wouldn't wait if I were you. There are a lot of retro hardware accessories that will dry up. I mean you are going to want to hook up a MFM Seagate ST-225 20MB hard drive right?
Once you get SpartaDos X and R-Time 8 cartridges installed you will be all set. The 20MB drive should handle your library. If you are using the 810 Drive with 90 KB capacity you should be able to store thousands of disks. A big collection of software might be 200 or so disks (15 MB or so but who's counting.) Since most games are really only 30 KB, you'll have plenty of room on the hard drive.
You'll probably want to get some 64 KB ram chips and solder them piggy back on the existing ram. Bend up the leads on the chips and cut one of the legs on the CPU. Wire it all up with another IC on a PCB board and you have 256 KB ram disk.
Would you open the laptop to prove there wasn't kiddie porn on it only to have them find evidence of another crime? In this country you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself.
Enemy combatants in time of war are not protected by the US Constitution. I can just see a Marine whipping out his Miranda card before taking a wounded soldier into "custody." It's so absurd I am smiling while I type it.
You mean, "I hope he is tried and convicted if found guilty." Didn't you?
Come back to earth. No one is going to a garbage dump looking for a free monitor to run free software on their $200 computer.
I am an retired Army officer, upper middle class American, politcally conservative, middle aged male. Not much chance of getting modded up in the first place. I might as well forget about the Karma and call it like I see it.
I have seen pictures of large solar panel arrays installed in the desert. Not one of them included the apparent sterilization of all life in the area. Where did you come up with 20,000 sq mi and where did you come up with destroying all plants in the area?
If that is your concept of what will happen with installation of solar panels then I do not subscribe to it. Basically what you are saying is that there is no hope. No matter what solution is put forth the environmental impact is unacceptable.
Think of that when a band of starving marauders takes everything you own by gun point. Think of it one last time when they come back to eat you.
Billing nightmare. Utopian, impractical. Nice idea though.
Like in France in 2003? There wasn't much backlash when 15,000 elderly people died in a couple of weeks.
Actually I am from Colorado and I love the desert. However, my point when less literally taken is that we have some hard choices coming up ahead and we have to weigh the ridiculous demands of fringe environmentalists against a massive die off of the human race.
When I got the flyer from the electric company it said it would only happen for three or four hours ten or so day s pure year. I could save a whooppping 3%, nearly $75 per year. I was so underwhelmed with the cost benefit analysis that the brochure went directly into the trash.
Who cares about scrub brush? There will always be plenty of tumble weeds. Let's see on one hand we have loss of tumble weed habitat and on the other we have the death of millions to billions of humans due to famine. Let me think about that one and get back to you.
Ridiculous. Spoken by someone who appears to never have been in the military. Or at least someone who didn't really "get it" while he was in.
Of course you need to treat them different. How else are you going to get the best and brightest? There has to be an incentive for the General to stay in the Army rather than become the CEO of some firm that sells equipment and services to the military.
Troops rarely begrudge perks offered to flag officers if he is squared away. In fact they will lay down their life based on his word. If they don't trust him then they will be less likely to perform and he won't be there long anyway.
Leaders are killed in combat continually. The ratio may be less but that is the nature of warfare. The resources they need to control the battle are expensive and cannot be risked by placing them on the front line. These assets are relatively immobile and must be protected by distance from contact with the enemy in order to provide reaction time to move when threatened.
So now you know a little more about how it really works instead of some half baked ideas of why "the military just sucks."
More information is typically better. This doesn't soumd like it would even come close to information overload. Highly trained military pilots have a tremendous ammount of information in their HUD. This sounds like a good idea to me.
Hackers don't exploit insecure systems. They may bypass security systems if they are in the way or if they are curious. You probably meant cracker.
...that posters still start their sentence in the subject and then use ellipses to tie it to the sentence fragment in the post. I will admit it was cool the first four or five hundred times it was done. Looking at the original poster's UID he probably invented the technique. Sadly, it is time to put this practice to rest.
I think you are mixing tenses. I think it should be, "but since you are being a semantic pedantic, I might as well be too."
Sounds interesting. I would like to see it.
Vista and XP performance figures are so similar that it doesn't matter. Vista has more features and is more stable. It runs on more hardware than XP and is just plain better. It has also sold more copies than any other version of Windows.
It was panned widely by the press and was not a compelling enough upgrade for the corporate world. There are also hardware cycles to consider. The impact of Y2k on Vista sales is not trivial. That was a forced hardware upgrade that condensed many corporate equipment aquisition timelines making for a much more volatile aquisiton schedule. Vista came a little too late, which probably is Microsoft's fault.
All in all it is no where near the disaster that some want it to be.
What do you base your Microsoft stock analysis on? Let me help you, Microsoft has beat Sun, Redhat and Novell (during the period that Redhat has been public.) What is it about Microsoft that is supposed to make the stockholders unhappy?
If you are visual person try this link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RHT#chart1:symbol=rht;range=my;compare=msft+novl+java;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
The Internet is a wonderful tool for research. You could try using it or you could continue to let your biases influence your ability to form rational opinions.
If you were a stockholder then you would have done better than almost everyone else in tech. Also, you would have one vote per share which is probably not enough to get Ballmer releived (since his numbers have been awesome you probably wouldn't garner too much support.)
Believe it or not I agree with almost everything you say.
I think resource management is best left to private enterprise based on capitalist fundamentals. I will also say that a hybrid socialist and capitalist structure can not efficiently function. That is the real problem in the delivery of many social services in the US.
As far as I am concerned health care is a service to be purchased like any other. In a capitalist construct that delivery method works perfectly and no other method is as fair. If one cannot afford health care than one does without. Healthier is not a constitutionally protected right. The only thing our founding fathers guarenteed us is freedom and the right of a chance for success.
I am resigned to the fact that someone will always have a better car than me, a better house than me, and better health care than me. I will strive to work and provide for myself within the limits of my abilities, and desires.
I will play the cards I've been dealt and not expect someone else to pick up the slack. I don't want a handout from anyone.
Well it was mostly tongue in cheek but since you took it so literally let's focus on the real issue. Inappropriate levels of fear about assuming normal amounts of risk and responsibility is a societal problem that I am trying to identify for the reader.
"Too safe" is not a meaningless phrase. Whether or not they agree with me, most people can infer the meaning of the main point of my previous post. To clarify, something is "too safe" when the cost benefit analysis shows that attaining a certain "level of safety" is unreasonable. In regards to your statement, is is incorrect. There are levels of risk that stratify the continuum of safety. Certain risk levels will be considered "safe" by some and not by others.
Since the purpose of this forum is to entertain and inform, I would like to say that the level of safety that you desire would be considered not cost effective in terms of the level of sacrifice made in resources and loss of individual freedom.
Being too literal is another sign suggestive of the compulsive behavior I alluded to previously. In this case another sign of overly concrete thinking is the inability of being able to see that a certain activity might not hold the same "level of danger" for all who undertake it.
On my 80 minute commute from work I like to use the time to catch up with friends and family by telephone. Three quarters of the driving is done on Interstate highways in rural Colorado. I pass a car once every 5 or 10 minutes during peak times. Using the phone during this drive is not a hindrance in any way. I have a Bluetooth phone with voice activated dialing not because it is safer but because I want one.
So to sum it up you are more fearful when you drive than I am. Because you are not as confident in your driving abilities you wisely choose to limit yourself more than the average driver does. Let's just leave it at that for now.
Heh, I thought you were serious for a minute. I get it. What makes it funny is the fact that no normal person would suggest that radios be banned from automobiles.