Sure, there'd be some installs of Linspire and some people running MacOS (and maybe Apple would see this as a good time to make MacOS install on lots of machines), but for hard core gamers and especially for corporate IT departments, it would be next to impossible to switch quickly and they'd end up paying quite a premium.
Thing is, why would they need to "switch quickly"? With the resource overhead I've seen in the beta version of Vista "hardcore gamers" would have to be retarded to make the switch. It'll only decrease the performance of your games, and all games for the next 3-4 years at least will keep running on XP. Meanwhile it makes no sense for corporate IT departments to switch immediately - any decent admin would wait until at least SP1 before switching. So you've got a good 2-3 year buffer there before anyone would really NEED to switch, which leaves plenty of opportunity for a viable alternative to gain popularity. The only thing MS could do to encourage people to upgrade sooner is stop releasing patches for Windows XP....but that'd set up an excellent opportunity for a class action lawsuit. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, it makes no sense for MS to "raise the price by some interesting factor".
That's just a wee bit different, eh? Otherwise you may as well claim that every time you see a car accident or train wreck on TV, you're also seing "people being killed". Let's not be silly here.
So he shot his parents after playing GTA. You mean he played GTA, got a gun, and shot his parents. He shot the very people who were responsible for ensuring that he didn't play violent games, and didn't get access to a gun.
Seems fair to me....bad parenting should be a capital offense. It's just too bad he killed the girl too.
It HAS been examined. Calling for it to be re-examined is like the CT nuts who say they want "an independent investigation" of the events on 9/11. They're not ever going to admit that they're wrong; what they really want is an investigation that'll agree with their point of view, and they won't shut up about it until they get one. In the meantime you can launch 20,000 studies with all manner of experts from all sorts of different backgrounds, and as long as they keep coming up with the same answer the critics will keep screaming for a new investigation. The Environuts in this city don't listen to reason.
NIMBY's don't usually show their ugly faces until a site is proposed for construction. Environuts pop up as soon as they hear any Bad Words, like "incinerator".
But on the larger point, I agree, there's a big difference. I'm a big fan of alternate fuel sources, I oppose strip mining and clear-cutting, etc. Anyone who generally believes in doing whatever we reasonably can to limit the damage to the environment could be considered an Environmentalist. The environuts are the asses who'd have us suppress any and every new technology, and would ultimately like to see us all living as hunter-gatherer cavemen again. Except without the hunting part.
That better not be a wise-crack about Canadian tourists:)
Seriously, yeah, the whole situation is really messed up. Can't blame the yanks at all for being upset about it; I'm just as pissed off at our government for wasting money and overcrowding our roads even more as the Michigeners (Michigenites?) are about having to absorb our trash. But the Toronto city government is infamous for not being able to accomplish anything other than giving themselves raises.
You'd be surprised. These plants exist in other parts of the world already, so it's a proven process. Toronto's been debating building one for a while (mainly for the garbage-disposal value since we now ship our trash to Michigan) but every time the environuts hear the word "incinerator", they get their collective panties in a collective bunch. Doesn't matter that the technology is proven, clean, and a damn sight better than wasting thousands of dollars and burning fossil fuels to ship our garbage to another country. Environutism has never been about being rational.
"knowledgeable geeks" aren't anti-microsoft; stuck up pricks with an "I'm 33l3t 'cuz I h4x0rz j00r b0x0rz" are anti-microsoft. Seriously, grow the hell up. MS brings simple, standardized computing to the masses. If you want something more flexible, go get yourself a linux CD, and let the rest of society get on with their lives.
Windmills operate on the kinetic energy of air passing by. By extracting that kinetic energy, you slow the air stream. Ergo, less wind, less air circulation, more heat in the atmosphere.
Ofcourse, there could be all sorts of other effects that would cancel out the reduction in wind speeds, but overall, if you have (a lot) more windmills you end up with less wind.
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
well, maybe YOU can't, but....:)
Seriously, a king size bed may weigh more than 40 lbs, but how much more than a standard size bed does it weigh? Or are you assuming I'll be using a standard sized bed and a king-size bed at the same time?
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
(you low-balled, sir; C-5s are neither inexpensive nor cheap to operate, but I'll humor you by using your number) times how many soldiers over there?
The $10 was based on extra fuel burned on a flight with extra space, and is probably much higher than the actual number. I'm not sure how much exactly it costs to have a C-5 that's already flying anyway carry an extra 40lbs, but it's not going to exceed $10.
And as for number of personnel? Ok, so you spend $10 for every soldier deployed, and end up with $1.5 million on a yearly basis. Assuming equal tax rates for all US civilian (which isn't the case, but let's go with it), this means you'd be contributin a grand total of one half of one penny per year for me and every other soldier to be able to watch TV while risking our lives during the next year. I'm sorry you think a fraction of a penny is too much to ask you for. I guess it would be a WHOLE penny if you include the flight back, so that must make it even worse for you. Luckily you're just a doofus with a computer and a bad attitude, instead of someone who controls military policy.
If you measure "output" in terms of heat energy rejected into the environment, and input in terms of electrical energy used, it is trivially easy to have an efficiency (output/input) greater than one.
Yes, but that would be an invalid measurement. Your "engine" isn't producing the heat, it's simply moving already existing heat energy from one spot to another. The ammount of heat being moved cannot be considered to be the output. If the heat was being created, THEN you could say that the ammount of heat being generated is the output of the machine, however, you'd never have one with a "400% efficiency", it will always be below 100%.
And yes I know we're talking about the same thing more or less, I just don't see how you could ever consider heat movement to be the output of a machine.
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
Ah. You are one cheap mofo. Sorry to have used an extra $10 of taxpayer money in order to have a bit of entertainment. Next time I'll strip down all my gear in order to make up for it. Who needs a second pair of socks anyway? One pair should last for 6 months or so!
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
As long as it's paid for by personal funds, who are you to tell me what I can and can't take with me? If I want a plazma TV or a king size bed, that's my call. I'm certainly not telling you what kind of furniture and electronics you can have in your house.
You probably think that was clever, but you're actually making a fairly decent analogy. Just replace the word "road" with "fuel source", and you've got a basic outline of what's going to need to happen once alternate fuels become viable, and oil becomes criticaly depleted.
Hardly. Communism was "idiotic nonsense" too, but look at the number of intelligent people (not just intelectuals) who bought into it. Being intelligent doesn't mean you'll never do (or beleive) stupid things, it only means you're better capable of learning, and more capable of effectively carrying out complex tasks.
Nice rant, but I've never claimed that terrorists are stupid. On the contrary, I know that they are quite intelligent. That's what makes my job so much harder. Stupid terrorists generaly remove themselves from the gene pool before they become a problem. Smart ones take us with them.
Yes. They (the "things that were said") were right then, and they're right now. Just because we survived the previous threats relatively unscathed doesn't mean we can afford to ignore current and future ones.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be even more fun to to to to to TO to to but and maybe you should work on your typing before you go talk to his boss.
Sure, there'd be some installs of Linspire and some people running MacOS (and maybe Apple would see this as a good time to make MacOS install on lots of machines), but for hard core gamers and especially for corporate IT departments, it would be next to impossible to switch quickly and they'd end up paying quite a premium.
Thing is, why would they need to "switch quickly"? With the resource overhead I've seen in the beta version of Vista "hardcore gamers" would have to be retarded to make the switch. It'll only decrease the performance of your games, and all games for the next 3-4 years at least will keep running on XP. Meanwhile it makes no sense for corporate IT departments to switch immediately - any decent admin would wait until at least SP1 before switching. So you've got a good 2-3 year buffer there before anyone would really NEED to switch, which leaves plenty of opportunity for a viable alternative to gain popularity. The only thing MS could do to encourage people to upgrade sooner is stop releasing patches for Windows XP....but that'd set up an excellent opportunity for a class action lawsuit. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, it makes no sense for MS to "raise the price by some interesting factor".
At that size? It'd generate the same size radar return as a friggin seagull.
That's just a wee bit different, eh? Otherwise you may as well claim that every time you see a car accident or train wreck on TV, you're also seing "people being killed". Let's not be silly here.
So he shot his parents after playing GTA. You mean he played GTA, got a gun, and shot his parents. He shot the very people who were responsible for ensuring that he didn't play violent games, and didn't get access to a gun.
Seems fair to me....bad parenting should be a capital offense. It's just too bad he killed the girl too.
- people dying, deadly outcome: wasn't an execution aired in Texas or something
No, you're thinking of televised beheadings on Al-Jazeera, courtesy of your friendly Iraqi neighborhood terrorist organization.
They CAN'T bundle firefox with openoffice! The grammar and spelling nazis will die of loneliness!
It HAS been examined. Calling for it to be re-examined is like the CT nuts who say they want "an independent investigation" of the events on 9/11. They're not ever going to admit that they're wrong; what they really want is an investigation that'll agree with their point of view, and they won't shut up about it until they get one. In the meantime you can launch 20,000 studies with all manner of experts from all sorts of different backgrounds, and as long as they keep coming up with the same answer the critics will keep screaming for a new investigation. The Environuts in this city don't listen to reason.
NIMBY's don't usually show their ugly faces until a site is proposed for construction. Environuts pop up as soon as they hear any Bad Words, like "incinerator".
But on the larger point, I agree, there's a big difference. I'm a big fan of alternate fuel sources, I oppose strip mining and clear-cutting, etc. Anyone who generally believes in doing whatever we reasonably can to limit the damage to the environment could be considered an Environmentalist. The environuts are the asses who'd have us suppress any and every new technology, and would ultimately like to see us all living as hunter-gatherer cavemen again. Except without the hunting part.
That better not be a wise-crack about Canadian tourists :)
Seriously, yeah, the whole situation is really messed up. Can't blame the yanks at all for being upset about it; I'm just as pissed off at our government for wasting money and overcrowding our roads even more as the Michigeners (Michigenites?) are about having to absorb our trash. But the Toronto city government is infamous for not being able to accomplish anything other than giving themselves raises.
You'd be surprised. These plants exist in other parts of the world already, so it's a proven process. Toronto's been debating building one for a while (mainly for the garbage-disposal value since we now ship our trash to Michigan) but every time the environuts hear the word "incinerator", they get their collective panties in a collective bunch. Doesn't matter that the technology is proven, clean, and a damn sight better than wasting thousands of dollars and burning fossil fuels to ship our garbage to another country. Environutism has never been about being rational.
"knowledgeable geeks" aren't anti-microsoft; stuck up pricks with an "I'm 33l3t 'cuz I h4x0rz j00r b0x0rz" are anti-microsoft. Seriously, grow the hell up. MS brings simple, standardized computing to the masses. If you want something more flexible, go get yourself a linux CD, and let the rest of society get on with their lives.
These days? It's like $54 USD. And the way it's been shifting, in a couple years it'll be more like $100 USD :)
ok, now I know you're just playing games. thanks for the distraction, and have yourself a good night.
Windmills operate on the kinetic energy of air passing by. By extracting that kinetic energy, you slow the air stream. Ergo, less wind, less air circulation, more heat in the atmosphere.
Ofcourse, there could be all sorts of other effects that would cancel out the reduction in wind speeds, but overall, if you have (a lot) more windmills you end up with less wind.
well, maybe YOU can't, but.... :)
Seriously, a king size bed may weigh more than 40 lbs, but how much more than a standard size bed does it weigh? Or are you assuming I'll be using a standard sized bed and a king-size bed at the same time?
(you low-balled, sir; C-5s are neither inexpensive nor cheap to operate, but I'll humor you by using your number) times how many soldiers over there?
The $10 was based on extra fuel burned on a flight with extra space, and is probably much higher than the actual number. I'm not sure how much exactly it costs to have a C-5 that's already flying anyway carry an extra 40lbs, but it's not going to exceed $10.
And as for number of personnel? Ok, so you spend $10 for every soldier deployed, and end up with $1.5 million on a yearly basis. Assuming equal tax rates for all US civilian (which isn't the case, but let's go with it), this means you'd be contributin a grand total of one half of one penny per year for me and every other soldier to be able to watch TV while risking our lives during the next year. I'm sorry you think a fraction of a penny is too much to ask you for. I guess it would be a WHOLE penny if you include the flight back, so that must make it even worse for you. Luckily you're just a doofus with a computer and a bad attitude, instead of someone who controls military policy.
I think you've got it backwards. If wind power cools the atmosphere, then windmills would increase global warming, not fight it.
If you measure "output" in terms of heat energy rejected into the environment, and input in terms of electrical energy used, it is trivially easy to have an efficiency (output/input) greater than one.
Yes, but that would be an invalid measurement. Your "engine" isn't producing the heat, it's simply moving already existing heat energy from one spot to another. The ammount of heat being moved cannot be considered to be the output. If the heat was being created, THEN you could say that the ammount of heat being generated is the output of the machine, however, you'd never have one with a "400% efficiency", it will always be below 100%.
And yes I know we're talking about the same thing more or less, I just don't see how you could ever consider heat movement to be the output of a machine.
Ah. You are one cheap mofo. Sorry to have used an extra $10 of taxpayer money in order to have a bit of entertainment. Next time I'll strip down all my gear in order to make up for it. Who needs a second pair of socks anyway? One pair should last for 6 months or so!
As long as it's paid for by personal funds, who are you to tell me what I can and can't take with me? If I want a plazma TV or a king size bed, that's my call. I'm certainly not telling you what kind of furniture and electronics you can have in your house.
You probably think that was clever, but you're actually making a fairly decent analogy. Just replace the word "road" with "fuel source", and you've got a basic outline of what's going to need to happen once alternate fuels become viable, and oil becomes criticaly depleted.
Hardly. Communism was "idiotic nonsense" too, but look at the number of intelligent people (not just intelectuals) who bought into it. Being intelligent doesn't mean you'll never do (or beleive) stupid things, it only means you're better capable of learning, and more capable of effectively carrying out complex tasks.
Nice rant, but I've never claimed that terrorists are stupid. On the contrary, I know that they are quite intelligent. That's what makes my job so much harder. Stupid terrorists generaly remove themselves from the gene pool before they become a problem. Smart ones take us with them.
Yes. They (the "things that were said") were right then, and they're right now. Just because we survived the previous threats relatively unscathed doesn't mean we can afford to ignore current and future ones.