Re:Ignorance is beaming
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 1
China eh? Funny, I always thought Haiku was a Japanese art. ..
This could be a useful comment in fighting ignorance, if the forgers were from Japan. Email spam is being routed through, (and increasingly, originating from) China, not Japan.
Given that Microsoft has in the past stated that all of the DOJ's proposed remedies were unacceptable to them, isn't this a dangerous move to suddenly implement these previously unacceptable remedies voluntarily?
What is to make supporting multiple versions of Windows unacceptable in the future, given that these remedies were once unacceptable in the past?
Is there something I'm missing, or could their legal department really be that incompetent?
I hope that *finally*, their arrogance and insane, childish brinksmanship through this whole process comes back and bites them in the ass.
Why not just have the heads on the left and right side of the platter. it might make for a slightly larger drive, but you can absolutely have several arms/servos at different points on the disk. Based on the size of arms I'd say you could have up to 6 with quite a bit of breathing room. It's not hard to imagine what a nightmare the controller design would be though...
If you're interested, I suggest you read my previous my previous posts on hard drives with multiple arms.
My comments were more about increasing hard drive performance dramatically than segregating a read head from a read/write head.
Can you point to a specific EULA that includes text of this nature? I can not find one. I am interested in how this is worded. I searched Microsoft with Google and MS's own internal search engine and can not find an EULA posted online. I found a eula.txt in the system32 directory on my 2000 machine at work and it mentions nothing about allowing an audit.
The Microsoft EULAs which supposedly allow audits on demand is the Open License program. You can't get a copy from Microsoft on the web, and they won't email you a copy either. You have to deal with the sales department of Microsoft, or one of their resellers, AND you have to be "pre-qualified for the program" by them, whatever that means. They don't pass out copies to the curious by any means.
And if you happen to work for a company covered by Microsoft's "Open License" program, don't ask Microsoft for a copy to review like I once did, and especially not during license renegotiation time... This may be why that company experienced a BSA audit very shortly thereafter. Simply asking for a copy of the EULA was the single most stupid thing I've ever done at work, and I'm glad I was downsized out of there a few weeks after I made that mistake.
Can someone tell me how, under Windows, to spoof the driver into thinking I've a Pentium 4 processor?
In the literature accompanying mine, it actually specifies that with a Pentium 4 processor, you get better resolution at higher magnifications, additional effects, and faster screen refreshes. I'm sure it's a deliberate screw up of the software if it doesn't detect a Pentium 4, (or other Intel processor, I suppose) and that pisses me off.
In fact, I can see the artifacts that are artificially added on the screen. There's a spattering of pixels that appear "dead" on screen: they're always some obviously wrong color that's slightly "off" what you'd otherwise expect to see at that point, and the "dead" spots don't move at all when the underlying target images are moved.
Artificially screwing up the quality of your products for AMD customers won't bring customers back, Intel! In fact, it does quite the opposite for me. Assholes.
Simply put, AMD doesn't say they will build 700 XP 1400s and 300 MP 1400s. Rather they schedule a production run on a given line for 1000 chips knowing that about 30% of the chips will be suitable for multiprocessor use. If there is only demand for 100 MPs, then they will simply label 200 of the chips that passed the MP test as XP in order to satisfy the demand.
This was the case with Intel 486DX and SX processors, but there is no evidence (not even anecdotal) that AMD does MP/XP selection in this manner. Why not? AMD has been getting great processor yields lately. They'd probably only save a few chips per thousand from the dustbin that could have been XP. And because they're not the leading company in the market, it's better to toss the chips that fail the MP test in case there's a further flaw that economical high speed testing won't detect.
Intel did the 486 SX/DX thing mainly because of tremendously large demand for processors that commanded $395-$1000 each. Sure, they kept doing it later as a convenience, but it was the high demand/high price/low yield situation that led them to do it in the first place.
Frankly, I would have been shocked if someone said there was a real difference in the cores (even before this revelation; it's the packaging where the differentiation is made), and I'd be incredulous if they were grading out reject MPs as XPs. There just isn't enough incentive to do so.
But-- FreeBSD is STABLE (check longest uptimes at Netcraft when you get a chance). If I could go for 4 years without rebooting with Linux...
...I'd be running some really lame, old-ass hardware, which isn't really the goal of a productivity desktop.
...I'd brag to my geek friends at the LUG about my 4 year uptime server (that's gotten about 5 hits a week from outside my own subnet in those years).
...I'd have to keep the same dorm room in the Freshman Hall, all through college, even during the summer.
...I'd earn as much residual income from my Linux Consultant business as I'm making in residuals from my Novell Consultant business.
...I'd electrocute myself while hot swapping the UPS batteries that weren't designed for hot swapping in a lame attempt to go for five continuous years of uptime.
...I'd set up a server to collect ideas for a legitimate use a personal server that stays up continuously for four years.
Any others? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons (other than bragging rights) to want a personal server with a four year continuous uptime, but I can't think of any.
The medium is not the message. I can replace the banner ad at the top of slashdot with a text string "Cheap IBM computers at www.dotbomb.com"
and it is still a banner ad, even if non-graphical. (How do you suppose they look like in lynx, by the way?)
First, if I put an ad in the classified section of the paper, is that a banner ad? What about if I paint it on the hood of a car? How about if I put a product in a scene in a movie, clearly visible but not mentioned? You have to put a dividing line somewhere. I choose to recogize banners in their normal, typical form, you want to call other advertising "banners". It doesn't really matter.
Banner ads are always there, whether there is a search or not. The banners are targeted, but I don't agree that they are as targeted as the sponsored links. I'll concede this, as they have been getting better targeted than ever lately...
Also, sponsored links allows multiple revenue generating choices for the user to click on as more than one item comes up for most searches. Less than a fraction of a percent of pages have a variable number of banners, depending on what you input on a search form. I can't recall ever seeing one, but it still doesn't matter.
Even if we equate banners with sponsored links, it only makes my main point stronger: there are too many search engines scrambling for too few ad dollars, so many will fail. When that happens, many will die, but the strongest companies will survive. There are no radical changes required for some companies to survive, (although such changes would make it easier) only better management and greater endurance than the last company to die in the consolidation that follows EVERY infant market. No revolutionary changes are required to make this happen.
There is no new economy. We're playing by the same basic economic rules we have been playing by for years and years and years... Even the most basic economic text can describe what is happening.
You've say you've been watching search engines since before the web. Consider the lessons of Econ 101 first and you'll see that there is nothing different about the economic rules of the search engine market than just about every new market that's ever been under the sun. The boom phase has faded and the contraction has begun. Just as every other market that was once new. Darwin's theories are alive and well, in attendance everywhere, and the dying has commenced.
Trust me, there will be survivors in this market whether there are changes in technology and/or revenue sources or not! It's just the nature of a laissez-faire capitalist system to produce too many companies to serve every new market. That always happens. Even after thinking about it for a while, I can't come up with a single (non-government regulated/dictated) market where this didn't happen when that market was new. It all balances eventually, it always does.
I'm done now, as I've passed way too far into the realm of rambling on.
(3) charge for "sponsored links" separate from the "unbiased search results"
Nope. This is just a variation of banner ads. The fact that they are presumably related to the query makes them better and more targeted banner ads, but banner ads they are.
No, you're being too general. Banner ads are graphical. Banner ads are based on impressions. Banner ads are less specifically related to the search in question. Banner ads are shotguns, sponsored links are rifles.
There is a long list of search engine carcasses to support my gloomy picture (Infoseek, Lycos, Excite, OpenText, Altavista). Until a search engine finds a new revenue model (either new source of income or dramatically lower costs through a technological breakthrough) they will all be condemned to fail.
There is a long list of auto manufacturer carcasses to support my gloomy picture, and unless they all a new revenue model (a new source of income or dramatically lower costs), they will all be condemned to fail. There were once hundreds of auto manufacturers in the world. The market couldn't support them all. That's also what is happening in the search engine world.
Your assertion fails to take into account the infancy stage of the business market cycle. High infant mortality is nothing new or surprising in a new industry. I don't think there is anything about search engines that make them inherently unprofitable in the way you suggest. It has NOT been the Operating Expenses that have taken the dead ones down, it has been overly high Capital Expenses and the carrying charges related to high capital costs that have driven them into the ground. This suggests poor management, not an uninhabitable market.
There is a limit to the size of ANY new market, but there's seldom a lack of people who think they can capitalize on it. In the long run, most of them are wrong, but if you look around, you'll notice that the strong ones have survived... The same will happen with search engines. Thus far, the only problem has been that too many have assumed that they would be the "one dominant player" and spent money to support that assumption. Simple mismanagement and nothing more.
If you do the math, the economics of search engines just do not work out. Over the last few years the amount in dollars of CPU time required per search has remained more or less constant (yes, CPUs are faster and cheaper, but the web is growing equally as fast).
In practice, each query to a search engine costs about 1 cent. This means the search engine has to recover 1 cent from each user per each query. What is the ongoing rate for banner ad? well, glad you ask: 1 cent for every impression. So assuming you were able to place add impressions in every single search page (which is quite unlikely) you are just breaking even, which brings us to alternative source of revenues.
All of these alternative source of revenues so far boil down to two types:
(1) charge for doing searchers
(2) charge for the listings
(3) charge for "sponsored links" separate from the "unbiased search results"
Your analysis covered sponsored links hidden in the search results (and how that drives traffic away), but you forgot these other, non-intrusive sponsored links that Google already has, which make far more than a penny a click. If you break even as you suggest on the "search cost/basic ad revenue" balance, sponsored links are nothing but profit.
Search engine economics is not nearly as glum as you paint them to be.
Yes. An overclocked Duron on an Abit KT7-RAID system. The 75GXP (15GB model) is on the primary IDE controller. I have a matched pair of Western Digital on the RAID array, but the IBM was the primary drive for quite some time before I scored the WD's. This machine has Win2000 on it.
As far as Win boxes go, this is by far the most stable system I've ever used. It's on all the time, and I average about one crash a month, if that. The shame is that Microsoft had almost conditioned me to think this is a good reliability record.
But what is wrong with wooden blocks, woodworking, metal working, clay, real electronic parts, solder, or paint? Why learn something as limited, expensive, and plasticky as Lego when you could learn real skills with the real thing?
I like your thinking, but which of these can be done in short time segments, like the 15-30 minutes between when I got home from school and when the first adult got home from work?
Which of these can be enjoyed and cleaned up again, with your work in process safely saved as well, between 5:00PM and dinner time on a weeknight?
Legos were never a complete substitute for other projects in my youth. Instead, they kept my interest in creating things during the intervals when there wasn't time or space to create by other means. Yes, they did take some time from other projects I might have accomplished, but their pure convenience factor made me much more creative as a whole.
And they cost more as well, but since when was such convenience cheap?
...This plate bisects the sphere, forming two independent combustion chambers. However, it is not attached to the sphere, it does not rotate, and it is not attached to the vane. It merely "slides" against these parts...
...Furthermore, I am not certain how the plate, rubbing up and acting on the sphere (nutating "around") spins the sphere, unless is it by some strange vector motions being imparted by friction.
I see nothing in the article, or on the inventor's site that indicates that the plate is not connected to the sphere. Since connecting the plate to the sphere would reduce friction at the sphere/plate junction and provide a logical, undertandable way to impart motion to the output shafts, I'm left wondering why you assume that the plate is not attached to the sphere.
It is my understanding that there are two moving parts: the sphere/plate/cones/driveshafts assembly is one, and the metal vane is the other.
If you are certain that the plate is NOT attached to the sphere, please explain further.
I know someone who used to play Counter-Strike as 'USAma Bin Laden' and always was terrorist. After the attack he felt very bad about the joke and changed his name. I have to say that I feel bad for these people who do something pre-attack as a joke or whatnot and now have people criticizing them when a month ago today would have found it funny.
I bet your friend didn't get himself offed every round without killing anyone else, did he?
Was using the name "USAma Bin Laden" more funny back then when "only" 19 U.S. Navy sailors and over 200 U.S. embassy personnel died because of Usama Bin Laden?
You say that after the attack he felt bad? What about before the attack, when only hundreds of innocents had died instead of thousands?
Your friend or associate was an insensitive jackass from the start.
I'll never understand shit like that. Idolizing a terrorist in ANY MANNER, including using his name in that manner, is a sick, stupid thing to do.
What's so hard about making up a name of your own to use in a game?
You want to research the doctrine of first sale. A turn-of-the-century court case involving, essentially, EULAs in books established that a consumer has the right to transfer, in whole, a book, notwithstanding any statement to contrary by the vendor or manufacturer.
I believe this was subsequently written into law for records, but this may have been turned on its ear by passage of UCITA, which gave EULAs teeth.
UCITA has not been passed into law at the federal level. UCITA has not been passed into law in most areas of the United States.
Only a small number of states have surrendered their citizen's right to know what is in a contract before agreeing to it.
Only a small number of states consider tearing away a thin plastic skin from a cardboard box the legal equivalent of reading, contemplating, and signing a contract contained within the box.
Then just dispute the charge with your credit card company. They may not end up having to give your money back, but I guarantee they'll get tired of challenging chargebacks from their bank.
They'll get VERY tired of it, VERY quickly. The average chargeback processing fee is $20, and that's charged to the merchant regardless of whether the chargeback is upheld or not.
Whenever you write your credit card company to dispute a charge, you cost the merchant about $20 regardless of outcome.
I used to go to estate sales, but after having found out what some of them really are, I can't morally justify going into someone's home and buying their stuff for cheap.
You shouldn't worry about the morals of going to an estate sale. Whatever doesn't sell on the first day gets discounted on the second. On the third day, they'll consider ANY offer, no matter how low.
The fact is, the more people who go to estate sales, the better it is for the estate, regardless of whether it's a death estate or a bankruptcy estate.
If it's a death estate sale, the heirs want to generate enough money to cover the deceased's bills. Anything left over goes to them, so you know they want as many buyers as possible. After all, just like dot-bomb workers, the heirs have usually cherry-picked the best stuff out of the estate before the sale without telling anyone in the legal system.
If it's a bankruptcy estate, and the sale doesn't generate enough to cover the debts, then the debtor frequently owes the remainder after the sale. If the sale generates more than the debt, which happens very, very rarely, the debtor gets a check for the excess amount. That's why you're doing the debtor a favor by going to his bankruptcy estate sale. With the new bankruptcy laws being pushed through in the US by conservatives, the debtor will almost always owe the remaining debt after the estate sale, so do both the debtor and yourself a favor and go to any estate sale that interests you.
Search Ebay for "Epoch" and "1/43". (Ebay seems to be down now, otherwise I'd link to an auction of one of these.)
The Japanese maker's web site is http://www.rc-mtech.com but it's in Japanese, so I can't read it.
You'll find tiny, roughly 4" long (110mm long, 48mm wide) race cars that are the latest R/C rage in Japan. They're just a little bit larger than a "Hot Wheels" car. They're fully proportional, so they steer smoothly, and they come in many frequencies, so you can have your own little table-top NASCAR circuit going if you want. They look like Asian rally cars. (Toyota Supra, Nissan Skyline, etc.)
The winning bids for these Epoch 1/43 scale race cars on Ebay are usually about $110-$130.
Slashdot big surprise of the day: Offtopic titty humor scores 8 "Funny" moderation points in two separate posts while the factual corrections score none of any sort! What a tremendously unexpected outcome! Facts mean nothing while breast humor scores big! Who would have ever guessed such a thing on Slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
This could be a useful comment in fighting ignorance, if the forgers were from Japan. Email spam is being routed through, (and increasingly, originating from) China, not Japan.
Given that Microsoft has in the past stated that all of the DOJ's proposed remedies were unacceptable to them, isn't this a dangerous move to suddenly implement these previously unacceptable remedies voluntarily?
What is to make supporting multiple versions of Windows unacceptable in the future, given that these remedies were once unacceptable in the past?
Is there something I'm missing, or could their legal department really be that incompetent?
I hope that *finally*, their arrogance and insane, childish brinksmanship through this whole process comes back and bites them in the ass.
Why not just have the heads on the left and right side of the platter. it might make for a slightly larger drive, but you can absolutely have several arms/servos at different points on the disk. Based on the size of arms I'd say you could have up to 6 with quite a bit of breathing room.
It's not hard to imagine what a nightmare the controller design would be though...
If you're interested, I suggest you read my previous my previous posts on hard drives with multiple arms.
My comments were more about increasing hard drive performance dramatically than segregating a read head from a read/write head.
Try these:
Comment 1 regarding multi-armed hard drives
and
Comment 2 further explaining how they would work
Those are the words of the person who submitted the story, not the ./ staffer who posted it... :)
Of course you're right, and I was a little harsh, but shouldn't an editor edit the articles being posted?
It seems as though Slashdot "editors" are complete slackers in that department. I think your word, "staffer", is far more appropriate.
If that bothered me, I would go somewhere else, but I like the "oh, screw it" attitude that shows up sometimes.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've an industry to go rock to massive proportions.
"You decide if it is real or not, a solid dual GPU solution would surely rock the industry to massive proportions!"
;)
(emphasis added)
When did Slashdot start hiring cheezy '80s Hair Metal band rejects to post stories to the front page?
It's "News for Nerds", not "News for Mullet-Sporting Losers Who Can't Get Over Their High School Glory Days".
Flamebait? Maybe a little.
The Microsoft EULAs which supposedly allow audits on demand is the Open License program. You can't get a copy from Microsoft on the web, and they won't email you a copy either. You have to deal with the sales department of Microsoft, or one of their resellers, AND you have to be "pre-qualified for the program" by them, whatever that means. They don't pass out copies to the curious by any means.
And if you happen to work for a company covered by Microsoft's "Open License" program, don't ask Microsoft for a copy to review like I once did, and especially not during license renegotiation time... This may be why that company experienced a BSA audit very shortly thereafter. Simply asking for a copy of the EULA was the single most stupid thing I've ever done at work, and I'm glad I was downsized out of there a few weeks after I made that mistake.
Can someone tell me how, under Windows, to spoof the driver into thinking I've a Pentium 4 processor?
In the literature accompanying mine, it actually specifies that with a Pentium 4 processor, you get better resolution at higher magnifications, additional effects, and faster screen refreshes. I'm sure it's a deliberate screw up of the software if it doesn't detect a Pentium 4, (or other Intel processor, I suppose) and that pisses me off.
In fact, I can see the artifacts that are artificially added on the screen. There's a spattering of pixels that appear "dead" on screen: they're always some obviously wrong color that's slightly "off" what you'd otherwise expect to see at that point, and the "dead" spots don't move at all when the underlying target images are moved.
Artificially screwing up the quality of your products for AMD customers won't bring customers back, Intel! In fact, it does quite the opposite for me. Assholes.
This was the case with Intel 486DX and SX processors, but there is no evidence (not even anecdotal) that AMD does MP/XP selection in this manner. Why not? AMD has been getting great processor yields lately. They'd probably only save a few chips per thousand from the dustbin that could have been XP. And because they're not the leading company in the market, it's better to toss the chips that fail the MP test in case there's a further flaw that economical high speed testing won't detect.
Intel did the 486 SX/DX thing mainly because of tremendously large demand for processors that commanded $395-$1000 each. Sure, they kept doing it later as a convenience, but it was the high demand/high price/low yield situation that led them to do it in the first place.
Frankly, I would have been shocked if someone said there was a real difference in the cores (even before this revelation; it's the packaging where the differentiation is made), and I'd be incredulous if they were grading out reject MPs as XPs. There just isn't enough incentive to do so.
But-- FreeBSD is STABLE (check longest uptimes at Netcraft when you get a chance). If I could go for 4 years without rebooting with Linux...
...I'd be running some really lame, old-ass hardware, which isn't really the goal of a productivity desktop.
...I'd brag to my geek friends at the LUG about my 4 year uptime server (that's gotten about 5 hits a week from outside my own subnet in those years).
...I'd have to keep the same dorm room in the Freshman Hall, all through college, even during the summer.
...I'd earn as much residual income from my Linux Consultant business as I'm making in residuals from my Novell Consultant business.
...I'd electrocute myself while hot swapping the UPS batteries that weren't designed for hot swapping in a lame attempt to go for five continuous years of uptime.
...I'd set up a server to collect ideas for a legitimate use a personal server that stays up continuously for four years.
Any others? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons (other than bragging rights) to want a personal server with a four year continuous uptime, but I can't think of any.
The medium is not the message. I can replace the banner ad at the top of slashdot with a text string "Cheap IBM computers at www.dotbomb.com"
and it is still a banner ad, even if non-graphical. (How do you suppose they look like in lynx, by the way?)
First, if I put an ad in the classified section of the paper, is that a banner ad? What about if I paint it on the hood of a car? How about if I put a product in a scene in a movie, clearly visible but not mentioned? You have to put a dividing line somewhere. I choose to recogize banners in their normal, typical form, you want to call other advertising "banners". It doesn't really matter.
Banner ads are always there, whether there is a search or not. The banners are targeted, but I don't agree that they are as targeted as the sponsored links. I'll concede this, as they have been getting better targeted than ever lately...
Also, sponsored links allows multiple revenue generating choices for the user to click on as more than one item comes up for most searches. Less than a fraction of a percent of pages have a variable number of banners, depending on what you input on a search form. I can't recall ever seeing one, but it still doesn't matter.
Even if we equate banners with sponsored links, it only makes my main point stronger: there are too many search engines scrambling for too few ad dollars, so many will fail. When that happens, many will die, but the strongest companies will survive. There are no radical changes required for some companies to survive, (although such changes would make it easier) only better management and greater endurance than the last company to die in the consolidation that follows EVERY infant market. No revolutionary changes are required to make this happen.
There is no new economy. We're playing by the same basic economic rules we have been playing by for years and years and years... Even the most basic economic text can describe what is happening.
You've say you've been watching search engines since before the web. Consider the lessons of Econ 101 first and you'll see that there is nothing different about the economic rules of the search engine market than just about every new market that's ever been under the sun. The boom phase has faded and the contraction has begun. Just as every other market that was once new. Darwin's theories are alive and well, in attendance everywhere, and the dying has commenced.
Trust me, there will be survivors in this market whether there are changes in technology and/or revenue sources or not! It's just the nature of a laissez-faire capitalist system to produce too many companies to serve every new market. That always happens. Even after thinking about it for a while, I can't come up with a single (non-government regulated/dictated) market where this didn't happen when that market was new. It all balances eventually, it always does.
I'm done now, as I've passed way too far into the realm of rambling on.
(3) charge for "sponsored links" separate from the "unbiased search results"
Nope. This is just a variation of banner ads. The fact that they are presumably related to the query makes them better and more targeted banner ads, but banner ads they are.
No, you're being too general. Banner ads are graphical. Banner ads are based on impressions. Banner ads are less specifically related to the search in question. Banner ads are shotguns, sponsored links are rifles.
There is a long list of search engine carcasses to support my gloomy picture (Infoseek, Lycos, Excite, OpenText, Altavista). Until a search engine finds a new revenue model (either new source of income or dramatically lower costs through a technological breakthrough) they will all be condemned to fail.
There is a long list of auto manufacturer carcasses to support my gloomy picture, and unless they all a new revenue model (a new source of income or dramatically lower costs), they will all be condemned to fail. There were once hundreds of auto manufacturers in the world. The market couldn't support them all. That's also what is happening in the search engine world.
Your assertion fails to take into account the infancy stage of the business market cycle. High infant mortality is nothing new or surprising in a new industry. I don't think there is anything about search engines that make them inherently unprofitable in the way you suggest. It has NOT been the Operating Expenses that have taken the dead ones down, it has been overly high Capital Expenses and the carrying charges related to high capital costs that have driven them into the ground. This suggests poor management, not an uninhabitable market.
There is a limit to the size of ANY new market, but there's seldom a lack of people who think they can capitalize on it. In the long run, most of them are wrong, but if you look around, you'll notice that the strong ones have survived... The same will happen with search engines. Thus far, the only problem has been that too many have assumed that they would be the "one dominant player" and spent money to support that assumption. Simple mismanagement and nothing more.
If you do the math, the economics of search engines just do not work out. Over the last few years the amount in dollars of CPU time required per search has remained more or less constant (yes, CPUs are faster and cheaper, but the web is growing equally as fast).
In practice, each query to a search engine costs about 1 cent. This means the search engine has to recover 1 cent from each user per each query. What is the ongoing rate for banner ad? well, glad you ask: 1 cent for every impression. So assuming you were able to place add impressions in every single search page (which is quite unlikely) you are just breaking even, which brings us to alternative source of revenues.
All of these alternative source of revenues so far boil down to two types:
(1) charge for doing searchers
(2) charge for the listings
(3) charge for "sponsored links" separate from the "unbiased search results"
Your analysis covered sponsored links hidden in the search results (and how that drives traffic away), but you forgot these other, non-intrusive sponsored links that Google already has, which make far more than a penny a click. If you break even as you suggest on the "search cost/basic ad revenue" balance, sponsored links are nothing but profit.
Search engine economics is not nearly as glum as you paint them to be.
Of first glance, you would seem correct.
However, the logical challenge is not that great.
I'm making this post only to call attention to the parent post, which should be moderated up.
Anyone running AMD on VIA with the GXP?
Yes. An overclocked Duron on an Abit KT7-RAID system. The 75GXP (15GB model) is on the primary IDE controller. I have a matched pair of Western Digital on the RAID array, but the IBM was the primary drive for quite some time before I scored the WD's. This machine has Win2000 on it.
As far as Win boxes go, this is by far the most stable system I've ever used. It's on all the time, and I average about one crash a month, if that. The shame is that Microsoft had almost conditioned me to think this is a good reliability record.
But what is wrong with wooden blocks, woodworking, metal working, clay, real electronic parts, solder, or paint? Why learn something as limited, expensive, and plasticky as Lego when you could learn real skills with the real thing?
I like your thinking, but which of these can be done in short time segments, like the 15-30 minutes between when I got home from school and when the first adult got home from work?
Which of these can be enjoyed and cleaned up again, with your work in process safely saved as well, between 5:00PM and dinner time on a weeknight?
Legos were never a complete substitute for other projects in my youth. Instead, they kept my interest in creating things during the intervals when there wasn't time or space to create by other means. Yes, they did take some time from other projects I might have accomplished, but their pure convenience factor made me much more creative as a whole.
And they cost more as well, but since when was such convenience cheap?
...This plate bisects the sphere, forming two independent combustion chambers. However, it is not attached to the sphere, it does not rotate, and it is not attached to the vane. It merely "slides" against these parts...
...Furthermore, I am not certain how the plate, rubbing up and acting on the sphere (nutating "around") spins the sphere, unless is it by some strange vector motions being imparted by friction.
I see nothing in the article, or on the inventor's site that indicates that the plate is not connected to the sphere. Since connecting the plate to the sphere would reduce friction at the sphere/plate junction and provide a logical, undertandable way to impart motion to the output shafts, I'm left wondering why you assume that the plate is not attached to the sphere.
It is my understanding that there are two moving parts: the sphere/plate/cones/driveshafts assembly is one, and the metal vane is the other.
If you are certain that the plate is NOT attached to the sphere, please explain further.
Thanks.
I know someone who used to play Counter-Strike as 'USAma Bin Laden' and always was terrorist. After the attack he felt very bad about the joke and changed his name. I have to say that I feel bad for these people who do something pre-attack as a joke or whatnot and now have people criticizing them when a month ago today would have found it funny.
I bet your friend didn't get himself offed every round without killing anyone else, did he?
Was using the name "USAma Bin Laden" more funny back then when "only" 19 U.S. Navy sailors and over 200 U.S. embassy personnel died because of Usama Bin Laden?
You say that after the attack he felt bad? What about before the attack, when only hundreds of innocents had died instead of thousands?
Your friend or associate was an insensitive jackass from the start.
I'll never understand shit like that. Idolizing a terrorist in ANY MANNER, including using his name in that manner, is a sick, stupid thing to do.
What's so hard about making up a name of your own to use in a game?
Another victim of the "Deathstar"...
Err... Deathstar? I think you're confused. AT&T[link removed] is the "Deathstar". See what I mean?
Yes, the AT&T logo looks like the Death Star from Star Wars. We've all known that since the late '80s.
The brand name that IBM uses to sell these drives is "Deskstar", they're dying, hence the nickname "Death Star".
Guess what... Words can be similar, too, not just pictures, baby Einstein. Try to remember that.
I believe this was subsequently written into law for records, but this may have been turned on its ear by passage of UCITA, which gave EULAs teeth.
UCITA has not been passed into law at the federal level. UCITA has not been passed into law in most areas of the United States.
Only a small number of states have surrendered their citizen's right to know what is in a contract before agreeing to it.
Only a small number of states consider tearing away a thin plastic skin from a cardboard box the legal equivalent of reading, contemplating, and signing a contract contained within the box.
Then just dispute the charge with your credit card company. They may not end up having to give your money back, but I guarantee they'll get tired of challenging chargebacks from their bank.
They'll get VERY tired of it, VERY quickly. The average chargeback processing fee is $20, and that's charged to the merchant regardless of whether the chargeback is upheld or not.
Whenever you write your credit card company to dispute a charge, you cost the merchant about $20 regardless of outcome.
You shouldn't worry about the morals of going to an estate sale. Whatever doesn't sell on the first day gets discounted on the second. On the third day, they'll consider ANY offer, no matter how low.
The fact is, the more people who go to estate sales, the better it is for the estate, regardless of whether it's a death estate or a bankruptcy estate.
If it's a death estate sale, the heirs want to generate enough money to cover the deceased's bills. Anything left over goes to them, so you know they want as many buyers as possible. After all, just like dot-bomb workers, the heirs have usually cherry-picked the best stuff out of the estate before the sale without telling anyone in the legal system.
If it's a bankruptcy estate, and the sale doesn't generate enough to cover the debts, then the debtor frequently owes the remainder after the sale. If the sale generates more than the debt, which happens very, very rarely, the debtor gets a check for the excess amount. That's why you're doing the debtor a favor by going to his bankruptcy estate sale. With the new bankruptcy laws being pushed through in the US by conservatives, the debtor will almost always owe the remaining debt after the estate sale, so do both the debtor and yourself a favor and go to any estate sale that interests you.
IANAL.
Search Ebay for "Epoch" and "1/43". (Ebay seems to be down now, otherwise I'd link to an auction of one of these.)
The Japanese maker's web site is http://www.rc-mtech.com but it's in Japanese, so I can't read it.
You'll find tiny, roughly 4" long (110mm long, 48mm wide) race cars that are the latest R/C rage in Japan. They're just a little bit larger than a "Hot Wheels" car. They're fully proportional, so they steer smoothly, and they come in many frequencies, so you can have your own little table-top NASCAR circuit going if you want. They look like Asian rally cars. (Toyota Supra, Nissan Skyline, etc.)
The winning bids for these Epoch 1/43 scale race cars on Ebay are usually about $110-$130.
It's called sarcasm . Inject a bit of it into your brain and read my post again.
Or would you rather I smack you with a clue stick that looks curiously like a Louisville Slugger?
Slashdot big surprise of the day: Offtopic titty humor scores 8 "Funny" moderation points in two separate posts while the factual corrections score none of any sort! What a tremendously unexpected outcome! Facts mean nothing while breast humor scores big! Who would have ever guessed such a thing on Slashdot?
Oops. It should read 3.5% and .75%, NOT .075%.
The previous poster made the error, and I didn't catch it. Sorry.