Umm, I think your analysis is backwards. Parents are divorced from whatever their teenagers do BECAUSE if they were into it, teenagers would have no part in it.
Kids have to differentiate themselves from their siblings and parents, it's just a part of nature. You really can't blame parents.
My guess is that most parents who are into video games don't get to play with their kids much once they hit 14 or so (Sorry, no real data on this one, just a guess); they will either find different games or give up altogether and take up sports or drugs or something the parent isn't always into.
Nothing frusterates a 13 year old more than when you hear them listening to music and you say "Hey, that's cool, can I get a copy?" then start dancing around to it.
Also, Windows has a known state. Imagine being given an IBM Mainframe with 20 viruses attacking it, each with unknown payloads and infection mechanisms, then disinfect it without taking the main operations of the computer offline.
If your virus is smart enough, you don't have a chance except to reboot to a known good physical image--and even then If your backup media was attached to the computer before it was shut down, it could be infected too.
Some of the assumptions they make in SCI-FI shows are really amazing and have turned me off most of 'em.
but "Everything is better than windows" threads always leave me feeling a little dirty.
Windows is extremely ambitious, more than Apple or Linux. Much more. It's just that most of the differences are below the surface and don't show up in day-to-day discussion.
For instance, Macs control their hardware. If someone comes out with a card that Mac hasn't approved, and it doesn't work in a mac, they don't even try to adapt to it, do they?
I bet that when they move to Intel, they will still only allow "Approved" hardware.
On top of that, MacOS has generally been more simplistic. Macs limped along with cooperative multitasking for quite a while after windows eliminated it in 3.1.
(Please correct but don't hate if I got this wrong, I'm not a heavy mac user)
On the flip side, Linux has a much simpler software and library model than windows.
Windows attempts to allow ALL applications to share libraries and desktop functions, even (epically) if the apps have never heard of each other.
You can drop almost any type of application into a Word document--spreadsheets and drawings from different vendors.
Apps all share DLLs that can be updated, a system written for a library version 3.2 may have that version replaced and has to handle it. Linux apps generally link to a specific library version.
The Linux GUI shells are getting much better (by emulating MS & Apple), but after playing around with them for a while you realize they have almost no depth. Drag & Drop generally only works within one application (or suite of apps) at a time, same with embedding one set of data in another.
The reason Linux doesn't do this stuff is because it would make Linux MUCH less reliable than windows.
Take the following: I install a Windows app. In doing so, it replaces a DLL in windows/system that Windows uses (Causing a reboot). This adds functionality that windows didn't expect. The same DLL is used across any 32 bit version from 95 through XP and expected to work.
A comparison: I install a Linux app. During the install it replaces a library used by the desktop manager to add some functionality. (Say, modifies how drag & drop works for all applications or replaces X86 with a new version).
You (obviously) have to restart X which is pretty much same as rebooting, all your X apps are killed, etc, and would have to adapt to various unknown software that may or may not even exist as you are writing your piece.
Would you be able to ship something that did this and worked across every Window Manager and every Distro and didn't disturb the stability of the system or any other apps that use the library you replaced?
And yet this happens many times during the lifetime of a typically windows install.
Windows is too ambitious and should have concentrated more on quality all along--but it still fits the home market better than the competition, and if it had insisted on 100% stability from the beginning, it would not have the market position it has now.
We try not to send people into situations where they might die any more. Used to be a much more popular concept, but now it only applies to war (and even at that you don't see the presidents and decision makers sending their kids into danger as often)
This is probably a positive thing. Anyone who thinks we should just risk the 10%, please volunteer your children (or yourselves) now.
An even bigger problem with this type of situation is that people cannot conceive of a situation until they have lived it.
Most (all?) of the people in the US Military would probably turn around and head home if they had the choice. This is why it's a 6 year program and not just a "Job" that you quit. It's why they put you in jail for quitting. They are relying on the ignorance and innocence of youth, and when that fails, they can always start drafting people.
In the same way, even people who volunteer to go on a mars mission would probably regret the decision after 10 years in the hospital or so. Ignorance of the possibility, or the inability to understand it's actual consequences is the only way they could recruit people for such a mission.
Am I the only one who remembers hearing about Planet X, a planet possibly larger than pluto, years ago? WTF? Whoever was in charge of keeping it a secret wasn't doing a very good job.
There is so much independent music out there now, and it's getting really good. Just skip the commercial stuff all together and start listening to the indi music wave that the big labels are creating.
Try garageband.com, etc.
Also a bunch of podcasts give you music you don't have to pay for at all:
coverville.com (Fantastic, and all their shows are downloadable online) CBC podcast (Great variety!) Rock & Roll Geek Show (Talks too much, but sometimes the music rocks).
BTW, I hadn't even considered this until my brother pointed it out, but listening to a podcast full of good music that you have never heard is completely different than listening to good music on the radio. In many ways it's a better feeling, and it's TOTALLY NEW--Kinda like when you were younger and you got a new Album/CD that just rocked from end to end.
The podcasts can be hit or miss, but when they hit, they really kick ass.
Currently I click on a link, the file downloads and then it's there.
The fact that Azureus possibly launched (or was already up) and handled is completely invisible if I choose not to look.
In addition I can close my browser, I can examine the torrent statistics, set bandwidth limits and I don't have to relearn how to do these things for each tool I download from (Firefox, iPodder,...).
How does a plug-in (or embedded) bit torrent client improve on this?
Moreover, why do we hear about crap like this but never about how they cracked that gigantic SPAM/bot ring that is slowly encrapifying computers across the globe???
If only 12% of the TVs sold are used to watch TV, that's about 1 per 2-3 households.
That means that about 50% of americans will be effected, not 12%. Just like saying that if most families had 2 cars, 4 bikes and various trailers, maybe an RV, banning roads would be okay because only 5% of vehicles sold are used to take someone to work.
If hackers are doing it to have fun, the effect is that they are pointing out holes in our security and helping us patch them against spammers, terrorists, thieves and other true evildoers.
Those who hack for fun should be encouraged and rewarded for coming forward with information. When they present a great hack to the public, say, getting into a bank database or the government, they should be announced nationally and given a fairly large cash reward--These people should be revered, looked up to and publicized much more then some basketball or football player.
This would also discourage them from trying to profit from their hacks in more devious ways since that would completely negate their accomplishments and get them thrown in jail instead.
By the way, I am not a hacker (in this sense), nor am I a kid any more, I'm not defending anything I've done, I just think we have a pretty messed up way of looking at things sometimes.
Actually, you see, time travel is really easy, but it will never be invented (more accurately you will never KNOW if it was invented).
If one were to invent time travel, eventually others would find out. The practice would spread over time. People would travel back in time and forward, changing the timeline back and forth and spreading the possibility of time travel to others.
One small change and whoops, there goes my worst enimy's family line (or maybe my best friend's, who can tell?)
If you could teleport anywhere instantly, what is the meaning of distance? how do you figure something like velocity=distance/time? Distance no longer becomes a measure.
In the same way, with time travel we will go through every possible timeline in no time at all--instantly. Time itself is no longer a possible measure of duration.
To examine the timelines would be impossible, thrown at random, being modified and every modification brings a hundred more.
The only thing that could possibly stop the timeline from fluttering about is if some strange set of changes stopped time travel from being invented in any iteration of the timeline, once that happened, BANG the time line is fixed and will not change again.
You are very close. Architects are extremely rare and will design out difficulty and redundancy in your system, making it simple to understand and implement.
A good architect would understand that he is not good at creating GUIs and defer to an expert, just like a home architect will probably allow someone else to design external facing & landscaping.
A good architect will ensure that the work is done in the right order, that nobody builds a room that is where the plumming has to go, and that some areas don't have too many walls where others lack the support to hold the ceiling up.
It takes a lot of experience to do those things. Luckally with housing we have some pretty good references and architects require more education and knowledge than inspiration and talent.
Software architects do exist, but as I said in another post here, are extremely rare. They are worth at least 20 programmers on any project, and their greatest talents are factoring and organizing the problem down into digestable, comprehendable pieces.
I must disagree. Most programmers THINK they are architects but are bricklayers.
If you ever hear anyone say we didn't have the time, it's a bricklayer. An architect would never start on a project that couldn't be completed within the constraints and would have instead designed something that could.
Many (most?) programmers have never met a software architect. There aren't many around (unless you count meaningless job titles). I'm not an architect, but I've been around long enough to recognize that fact.
This line of thinking amazes me. If someone hacked into a government computer, he saved them Billions of dollars in troubleshooting and potential terrorism costs.
Anyone hacking into a highly secure government website should be given a medal and put into a super 'leet closely supervised government hacking team.
So the issue is that alone you would do the right thing, but in a group, you are involved with an excuse--that the rest of the group might not want it.
This is where I feel that corporations become evil. It is not any individual, it is the fact that when you get many individuals together you get the lowest common denominator when it comes to morals.
Everybody starts using this group as an excuse. It's okay if every individual profits from it, but there is no individual responsibility for having a soul.
This is the one case where a government should be strong--to ensure that these companies are giving back to the community, a community that supports them with educated workers, streets, protection, and customers.
Just because we have allowed companies to have "Rights", doesn't make it right.
The funny thing is, this has been known again and again throughout time. When things are going well, humans can't help but get greedy. We start to think that greed is great. We let government pass laws stomping on other people so a few can get richer. It's like we actually want people so rich that the only thing they can do with their money is buy laws or other people (acts that are by definition damaging to the general populace)
Last time it happened was in the 20's. By the 40's we had recaptured the government and started rebuilding from the wreck those laws had caused. Everyone understood how bad greed was at that point. The lesson lasted until the 80's, that's not too bad, but it seems like it must be time for another reminder.
>Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
I find it interesting that you (and many other people) are more worried about fixing this problem with capitalism than fixing the problems of jobs being outsourced, removed by automation or just seriously underpaid when compared to the cost of living.
Those are huge problems. The problem of a major corporation's investors having to trade in their SUVs for BMWs doesn't bother me quite so much.
The actual people that do the work are rarely in the position to profit from IP rights, so the IP rights are pretty much useless. Strangely enough, your concept of the micro-replicator would put that ability back into the hands of the creative individuals.
This revolution just happened in software as computer hardware became commodity--everyone was able to create the software, and it thrived like nothing we have ever seen.
The creativity was there--people built software because they wanted to and it worked out really well, for a while.
Then investors came in, and companies got big and greedy. A few people got rich and a bunch of uninspired hacks joined the scene, and everything kinda ground to a halt.
The investors, the large corporations and the IP laws are the problem, not the solution.
Why did the open source community thrive while businesses were folding all around it? No investors, no profiteers, no uninspired hacks just in for a buck.
I'm sure your replicator would enable a similar effect with hardware, and in the end you would have a group of people creating fantastic drugs and giving away the design just to help people (and a bunch of sick bastards that create viruses for fun, but that's another story)
And just a question for you. If you created a drug that cured cancer and was nearly free to reproduce, you try to make every possible cent from it and deny it to some, or would you ask people to pay what they could, not charging anything if it could save the life of a child who couldn't afford it.
if you did denied the drug to anyone at all, wouldn't you expect to go straight to hell? WWJD? (Not that I'm Christian at all, but the question is very valid!)
For that matter, if you could spend $50 to save some kids life, would you have to think about it? Why is that different? Just because it involves a bunch of rich people in SUVs only making modest profit instead of fantastic profit and not you or me just being out a few bucks? Because they are rich they don't need to have a soul?
As far as copyrights go, if there was less money for the investors to skim off the top, it would be better for everyone involved (except, of course, the investors who would have to get a job and actually produce something instead of free-loading off those that do).
Nothing but a couple of drawings and a concept. I didn't even notice TFA discussing tests, a proof of concept would have been easy.
This is just someone looking for some venture funding. My guess is that you would have to pass a lot of water through the thing to get enough oxygen out, and between that and the batteries, you'd be much worse off than with bottles.
One of those james bond devices that pulled you along and sucked the o2 out of the water as it went through he device could work, but that is nothing like the design mentioned, and would have to contain a bigger backup tank because one cold spot and your oxygen is gone.
It could supplement subs, but if you have a sub with that much power, you might as well just blast the o2 from the hydrogen with electricity and use that, much more reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, I think your analysis is backwards. Parents are divorced from whatever their teenagers do BECAUSE if they were into it, teenagers would have no part in it.
Kids have to differentiate themselves from their siblings and parents, it's just a part of nature. You really can't blame parents.
My guess is that most parents who are into video games don't get to play with their kids much once they hit 14 or so (Sorry, no real data on this one, just a guess); they will either find different games or give up altogether and take up sports or drugs or something the parent isn't always into.
Nothing frusterates a 13 year old more than when you hear them listening to music and you say "Hey, that's cool, can I get a copy?" then start dancing around to it.
A couple:
N ews&file=article&sid=47
http://www.k12os.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=
+5 right on.
Also, Windows has a known state. Imagine being given an IBM Mainframe with 20 viruses attacking it, each with unknown payloads and infection mechanisms, then disinfect it without taking the main operations of the computer offline.
If your virus is smart enough, you don't have a chance except to reboot to a known good physical image--and even then If your backup media was attached to the computer before it was shut down, it could be infected too.
Some of the assumptions they make in SCI-FI shows are really amazing and have turned me off most of 'em.
but "Everything is better than windows" threads always leave me feeling a little dirty.
Windows is extremely ambitious, more than Apple or Linux. Much more. It's just that most of the differences are below the surface and don't show up in day-to-day discussion.
For instance, Macs control their hardware. If someone comes out with a card that Mac hasn't approved, and it doesn't work in a mac, they don't even try to adapt to it, do they?
I bet that when they move to Intel, they will still only allow "Approved" hardware.
On top of that, MacOS has generally been more simplistic. Macs limped along with cooperative multitasking for quite a while after windows eliminated it in 3.1.
(Please correct but don't hate if I got this wrong, I'm not a heavy mac user)
On the flip side, Linux has a much simpler software and library model than windows.
Windows attempts to allow ALL applications to share libraries and desktop functions, even (epically) if the apps have never heard of each other.
You can drop almost any type of application into a Word document--spreadsheets and drawings from different vendors.
Apps all share DLLs that can be updated, a system written for a library version 3.2 may have that version replaced and has to handle it. Linux apps generally link to a specific library version.
The Linux GUI shells are getting much better (by emulating MS & Apple), but after playing around with them for a while you realize they have almost no depth. Drag & Drop generally only works within one application (or suite of apps) at a time, same with embedding one set of data in another.
The reason Linux doesn't do this stuff is because it would make Linux MUCH less reliable than windows.
Take the following: I install a Windows app. In doing so, it replaces a DLL in windows/system that Windows uses (Causing a reboot). This adds functionality that windows didn't expect. The same DLL is used across any 32 bit version from 95 through XP and expected to work.
A comparison: I install a Linux app. During the install it replaces a library used by the desktop manager to add some functionality. (Say, modifies how drag & drop works for all applications or replaces X86 with a new version).
You (obviously) have to restart X which is pretty much same as rebooting, all your X apps are killed, etc, and would have to adapt to various unknown software that may or may not even exist as you are writing your piece.
Would you be able to ship something that did this and worked across every Window Manager and every Distro and didn't disturb the stability of the system or any other apps that use the library you replaced?
And yet this happens many times during the lifetime of a typically windows install.
Windows is too ambitious and should have concentrated more on quality all along--but it still fits the home market better than the competition, and if it had insisted on 100% stability from the beginning, it would not have the market position it has now.
It still sucks.
We try not to send people into situations where they might die any more. Used to be a much more popular concept, but now it only applies to war (and even at that you don't see the presidents and decision makers sending their kids into danger as often)
This is probably a positive thing. Anyone who thinks we should just risk the 10%, please volunteer your children (or yourselves) now.
An even bigger problem with this type of situation is that people cannot conceive of a situation until they have lived it.
Most (all?) of the people in the US Military would probably turn around and head home if they had the choice. This is why it's a 6 year program and not just a "Job" that you quit. It's why they put you in jail for quitting. They are relying on the ignorance and innocence of youth, and when that fails, they can always start drafting people.
In the same way, even people who volunteer to go on a mars mission would probably regret the decision after 10 years in the hospital or so. Ignorance of the possibility, or the inability to understand it's actual consequences is the only way they could recruit people for such a mission.
Let's just wait until we have better shielding.
Am I the only one who remembers hearing about Planet X, a planet possibly larger than pluto, years ago? WTF? Whoever was in charge of keeping it a secret wasn't doing a very good job.
There is so much independent music out there now, and it's getting really good. Just skip the commercial stuff all together and start listening to the indi music wave that the big labels are creating.
Try garageband.com, etc.
Also a bunch of podcasts give you music you don't have to pay for at all:
coverville.com (Fantastic, and all their shows are downloadable online)
CBC podcast (Great variety!)
Rock & Roll Geek Show (Talks too much, but sometimes the music rocks).
BTW, I hadn't even considered this until my brother pointed it out, but listening to a podcast full of good music that you have never heard is completely different than listening to good music on the radio. In many ways it's a better feeling, and it's TOTALLY NEW--Kinda like when you were younger and you got a new Album/CD that just rocked from end to end.
The podcasts can be hit or miss, but when they hit, they really kick ass.
Well, as long as YOU keep buying the feature-rich expensive phones that don't work, I guess they will keep making them.
Could someone explain what you get?
...).
Currently I click on a link, the file downloads and then it's there.
The fact that Azureus possibly launched (or was already up) and handled is completely invisible if I choose not to look.
In addition I can close my browser, I can examine the torrent statistics, set bandwidth limits and I don't have to relearn how to do these things for each tool I download from (Firefox, iPodder,
How does a plug-in (or embedded) bit torrent client improve on this?
Moreover, why do we hear about crap like this but never about how they cracked that gigantic SPAM/bot ring that is slowly encrapifying computers across the globe???
If only 12% of the TVs sold are used to watch TV, that's about 1 per 2-3 households.
That means that about 50% of americans will be effected, not 12%. Just like saying that if most families had 2 cars, 4 bikes and various trailers, maybe an RV, banning roads would be okay because only 5% of vehicles sold are used to take someone to work.
1) Install Firefox
2) Install "BugMeNot" plug-in
3) Profit!
If hackers are doing it to have fun, the effect is that they are pointing out holes in our security and helping us patch them against spammers, terrorists, thieves and other true evildoers.
Those who hack for fun should be encouraged and rewarded for coming forward with information. When they present a great hack to the public, say, getting into a bank database or the government, they should be announced nationally and given a fairly large cash reward--These people should be revered, looked up to and publicized much more then some basketball or football player.
This would also discourage them from trying to profit from their hacks in more devious ways since that would completely negate their accomplishments and get them thrown in jail instead.
By the way, I am not a hacker (in this sense), nor am I a kid any more, I'm not defending anything I've done, I just think we have a pretty messed up way of looking at things sometimes.
Actually, you see, time travel is really easy, but it will never be invented (more accurately you will never KNOW if it was invented).
If one were to invent time travel, eventually others would find out. The practice would spread over time. People would travel back in time and forward, changing the timeline back and forth and spreading the possibility of time travel to others.
One small change and whoops, there goes my worst enimy's family line (or maybe my best friend's, who can tell?)
If you could teleport anywhere instantly, what is the meaning of distance? how do you figure something like velocity=distance/time? Distance no longer becomes a measure.
In the same way, with time travel we will go through every possible timeline in no time at all--instantly. Time itself is no longer a possible measure of duration.
To examine the timelines would be impossible, thrown at random, being modified and every modification brings a hundred more.
The only thing that could possibly stop the timeline from fluttering about is if some strange set of changes stopped time travel from being invented in any iteration of the timeline, once that happened, BANG the time line is fixed and will not change again.
That's our timeline.
You are very close. Architects are extremely rare and will design out difficulty and redundancy in your system, making it simple to understand and implement.
A good architect would understand that he is not good at creating GUIs and defer to an expert, just like a home architect will probably allow someone else to design external facing & landscaping.
A good architect will ensure that the work is done in the right order, that nobody builds a room that is where the plumming has to go, and that some areas don't have too many walls where others lack the support to hold the ceiling up.
It takes a lot of experience to do those things. Luckally with housing we have some pretty good references and architects require more education and knowledge than inspiration and talent.
Software architects do exist, but as I said in another post here, are extremely rare. They are worth at least 20 programmers on any project, and their greatest talents are factoring and organizing the problem down into digestable, comprehendable pieces.
I must disagree. Most programmers THINK they are architects but are bricklayers.
If you ever hear anyone say we didn't have the time, it's a bricklayer. An architect would never start on a project that couldn't be completed within the constraints and would have instead designed something that could.
Many (most?) programmers have never met a software architect. There aren't many around (unless you count meaningless job titles). I'm not an architect, but I've been around long enough to recognize that fact.
This line of thinking amazes me. If someone hacked into a government computer, he saved them Billions of dollars in troubleshooting and potential terrorism costs.
Anyone hacking into a highly secure government website should be given a medal and put into a super 'leet closely supervised government hacking team.
So the issue is that alone you would do the right thing, but in a group, you are involved with an excuse--that the rest of the group might not want it.
I ON.htm
This is where I feel that corporations become evil. It is not any individual, it is the fact that when you get many individuals together you get the lowest common denominator when it comes to morals.
Everybody starts using this group as an excuse. It's okay if every individual profits from it, but there is no individual responsibility for having a soul.
This is the one case where a government should be strong--to ensure that these companies are giving back to the community, a community that supports them with educated workers, streets, protection, and customers.
Just because we have allowed companies to have "Rights", doesn't make it right.
The funny thing is, this has been known again and again throughout time. When things are going well, humans can't help but get greedy. We start to think that greed is great. We let government pass laws stomping on other people so a few can get richer. It's like we actually want people so rich that the only thing they can do with their money is buy laws or other people (acts that are by definition damaging to the general populace)
Last time it happened was in the 20's. By the 40's we had recaptured the government and started rebuilding from the wreck those laws had caused. Everyone understood how bad greed was at that point. The lesson lasted until the 80's, that's not too bad, but it seems like it must be time for another reminder.
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/THE_GREAT_DEPRESS
The way corporations abuse copyrights is just one example of the extremities of greed they will go to when left unchecked. It will get worse.
>Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
I find it interesting that you (and many other people) are more worried about fixing this problem with capitalism than fixing the problems of jobs being outsourced, removed by automation or just seriously underpaid when compared to the cost of living.
Those are huge problems. The problem of a major corporation's investors having to trade in their SUVs for BMWs doesn't bother me quite so much.
The actual people that do the work are rarely in the position to profit from IP rights, so the IP rights are pretty much useless. Strangely enough, your concept of the micro-replicator would put that ability back into the hands of the creative individuals.
This revolution just happened in software as computer hardware became commodity--everyone was able to create the software, and it thrived like nothing we have ever seen.
The creativity was there--people built software because they wanted to and it worked out really well, for a while.
Then investors came in, and companies got big and greedy. A few people got rich and a bunch of uninspired hacks joined the scene, and everything kinda ground to a halt.
The investors, the large corporations and the IP laws are the problem, not the solution.
Why did the open source community thrive while businesses were folding all around it? No investors, no profiteers, no uninspired hacks just in for a buck.
I'm sure your replicator would enable a similar effect with hardware, and in the end you would have a group of people creating fantastic drugs and giving away the design just to help people (and a bunch of sick bastards that create viruses for fun, but that's another story)
And just a question for you. If you created a drug that cured cancer and was nearly free to reproduce, you try to make every possible cent from it and deny it to some, or would you ask people to pay what they could, not charging anything if it could save the life of a child who couldn't afford it.
if you did denied the drug to anyone at all, wouldn't you expect to go straight to hell? WWJD? (Not that I'm Christian at all, but the question is very valid!)
For that matter, if you could spend $50 to save some kids life, would you have to think about it? Why is that different? Just because it involves a bunch of rich people in SUVs only making modest profit instead of fantastic profit and not you or me just being out a few bucks? Because they are rich they don't need to have a soul?
As far as copyrights go, if there was less money for the investors to skim off the top, it would be better for everyone involved (except, of course, the investors who would have to get a job and actually produce something instead of free-loading off those that do).
Very good points, I've always wondered about some of these questions. Thanks.
I wish the mod system didn't suck these days--you deserve better (but then hell, it's still early)
Nothing but a couple of drawings and a concept. I didn't even notice TFA discussing tests, a proof of concept would have been easy.
This is just someone looking for some venture funding. My guess is that you would have to pass a lot of water through the thing to get enough oxygen out, and between that and the batteries, you'd be much worse off than with bottles.
One of those james bond devices that pulled you along and sucked the o2 out of the water as it went through he device could work, but that is nothing like the design mentioned, and would have to contain a bigger backup tank because one cold spot and your oxygen is gone.
It could supplement subs, but if you have a sub with that much power, you might as well just blast the o2 from the hydrogen with electricity and use that, much more reliable.
1. Trust Spray
2. ???
3. Profit!
There have to be a million #2's, and none of them good.
Sorry but I just LOVE that this:
>Could someone please explain what this thing does and doesn't? The website doesn't really say much.
was rated +2 insightful.
Hmm. I was under the impression that they already monitored the selections people made within the searches and PageRank to adjust future searches.
How is paying them to do so better?