Ndi

I am painfully aware of my country's history, as I actually remember automatic gunfire in the streets. Unlike US, European countries, as well as a lot of other countries actually have citizens that survived a war raging over the roof of their homes. That is the reason why most other countries oppose war to the last possible solution has been tried, as ridiculous as it might sound. Because once a shot has been fired, there is no turning back. For US, "war toll" is a bill and a few lives. For others, "war" goes as far as completely raised cities and country rebuilds, famine, you name it. That's why I'm bitter. Forgive me for not completely adhering to certain ideas, but we have a saying where I live. "A man who has eaten cannot understand the hungry". Trust me on it if you never went hungry. Thus I have difficulty accepting "just" and/or "necessary" wars from people with Big Macs under 5 minutes drive in a gas guzzling SUV that get "war" on cable. I don't hate US for going to war ignoring the rest planet. I hate it for claiming the rest of the world doesn't understand their pain and just cause and the futility of talks. I can understand being uneasy that a neighbor has a grenade. That should warrant a search. It should warrant a forceful, skin search. But not an execution. Do you execute people in US because you "know" they are armed but can't find anything? No. What's the source of the double standard? If I could make a rule, change the way things are, I'd make a rule in which the invader has to play host in a war. US want to invade -pick a country any country- Sweden? Great. All Swedish armed forces are moved to Washington and they fight there. I wonder how many Americans will still support the war crouching in a ditch. I know this is a response to your post, but I find it hard to separate the reply from the rest of the post. Try not to see it as a directed argument. I got beaten to quite a few of the things I wanted to say Doesn't qualify as false, either. What was that called, straw man? It is arguably not a prediction, but most were called Vietnam NOT because they were long, not because the enemy eats rice but because the gross mis-prediction of results and strategy. Some people though they'd swoop in and bomb them all. Never happened. Enemy was determined, patriotic, ready to die. Noncompromising. A foothold and "peace" COULD NOT be obtained and if the goal would be to institute democracy and the Big Mac mandatory meal then the only result in the long run would be failure or many-year-civil-tension occupation at the cost of many lives. Sorry, you need a reality check. Or a head check. No way, now how, under any circumstances it is NOT "just about justified" to slaughter a SINGLE newborn for anything. You throw in "and approximate number of countries". What is this? Command&Conquer? Warcraft? Sorry to be the thrower of acid, but it's all so superior-to-inferior thinking. If some citizen of your country, whatever that was came to my country and bombed something, would you still feel your death along with family and friends is just about justified because you harbor terrorists? It's not a rhetorical question. Would you accept your death, close your eyes and say "I am aware me and my wife/kid/whatever deserve to die because the area needs to be bombed. International politics has side effects and I'm it. Shoot away boys". I expect EVERY possible alternative attempted. E-V-E-R-Y. Embargo, assassination attempts, elite troops pinpoint attacks, international coordinated, civilian-safe strikes. I don't care. Food fights. Anything before innocent life is threatened. Proceed as if that was your country. I know I shouldn't go into philosophical debate here, but my stomach cringes when I hear "women now have the privilege of not covering their faces". Who is anyone to decide what's wrong or right? They've been doing that for ages, if they hated it they'd change it. Turkish empire conquered and converted because Allah was the greatest. Europe started crusading and spilling blood in the name of the cross (that's where Crusade comes from). We call that dark ages. Yet we now cut away guts and impose "free". We are now enlightened. Ahhh, the bliss of justification by ignorance. Let me rephrase that. I have to kill you. I know there are moral laws and legal repercussions, but since nobody will kill you, *I* have to do it. Every minute that passes you are a greater threat to me. I somehow know you are going to kill me so that justifies a personal crusade. Screw the rest of the world that thinks you have a right to live and that believe in rules and ways of doing things. Court of law is insignificant. Law itself is insignificant. Throw them away, they only exists for the OTHER citizens and the OTHER criminals. Right. Ignore the complexity, oversimplify and your solution becomes the obvious. Where in the reasoning above did you even consider how things works for non-superpowers? Where's the equality of rights? Oh yes, we only get equality if we are friends. Dislike you and I lose my status as a sovereign country. Bush himself went live on TV and threatened the world to pick a side. Either help the 21st century crusade or join the heretics.

Non-us here. Viewpoint: International The money spent in weapons and troop movement could have been used in a global defense initiative to build a shield that could track and kill long range missiles. It could have been the start in a project that uses global scanners to track the use of radioactive materials and enforce a nuclear (weapon) ban. It could have been used for a heckload of good things without even leaving the military investment area. Not even starting on other non-military issues. Or how about all those billions spent on even more down-to-earth research to quickly neutralize radioactive material? That would make nuclear waste and fallouts much less dangerous, maybe below the self-destruction threshold. Viewpoint: US I'm not in the US, so I'll keep it short. I know I'm not supposed to say this, I know it's not politically correct, I know. But I'll use your question as an excuse. I'm sorry, I really am. Perhaps it's better if you skip the next paragraph if you feel exceedingly patriotic. K? For the land of the free home of the brave or whatever you call it you're not very free and not very brave. Nations put their foot down against tyranny, nations spill blood for freedom. So Iraqi/whatever blood was spilled. Are you any freeer (intended)? No. Well, you must be doing it wrong. You are going the wrong way, you can see it's going the wrong way, it's evident to a blind retarded infant that it's not going well. Resolution? Keep going. To the IgnoreIt Mobile! What would change if you weren't doing it wrong? Everything. Everything you have and do now has been at some point touched by the high drain on economy. These days everything has a price. Research has a price, you need to pump that much to make it happen. A human life has a price, you need that much to make and apply treatments. Sure you can't put a price on a philosophical, unknown, generic life. But a pinpoint single sick person? The cost of treatment. Approximate as it is. The drain affected economy, health care, lifestyle, you name it. You think love has no price? Sure, money is not happiness, but lack of it sure brings unhappiness at some level. Can you truly say even THAT was unaffected? My opinion? Look around. Pick something. Anything. It'd probably be different. I could go on complaining and ranting for days so I'll stop before I wear out my keys. Viewpoint: My corner of planet (whatever it is - doesn't matter) We'd all sleep better at night if we knew that only people who understand grammar were a factor in detonating nuclear arsenal. Cold war was bad, sure, but at least US had all missiles pre-aimed at Moscow and the other way around. Sure there'd be some radiation, but hey, we've had our share. We'll just call the third eye an evolutionary advantage. Plus, minus *some* drain, some percentage was pumped into advancement. Orbital, digital, whatever. SOMETHING good was coming out of it for everyone. What global good has Iraq/whatever was(s) brought? Now? Heck, anyone could be next if you are not a power by yourself. What if my whatever country had this huge oil patch and a non-free-and-brave government? Am I safe? Less so I'm afraid.

It's very inefficient because it was not supposed to work that way. It's supposed to push air through at a certain pressure and a certain flow, not compress. Thus, several million liters of air on one side will unlikely go over 2-3 atmospheres before the turbo actually exploded, throwing blades everywhere. If you lower the pressure to keep it from shaking, it will deliver as designed, around 2 bar. The turbo doesn't work that way, it's meant as an energy recycling pump, not a transformation tool. If you want to move compressed air, you'd have better shots with a compressor, either automotive (roots, centri, etc) or a custom design (I'd go for a piston). That's why a 7 HP compressor on a Mercedes gets .5 bar in an engine and a 12 volt, 0.005 HP compressor fills a wheel with air up to 4 bar. It's like using an airplane propeller to blow air. While it's quite good at doing just that, it's all about flow. Freely, it can move may cubic meters at 500 km/h. Use it to fill a balloon and as soon as it reaches a certain stage the pressure will escape back through the blades. For a balloon, you need a pump. * If you are looking to use it as a compressor, bad choice. * If you are trying to compute engine efficiency, it doesn't work that way, you compute relative to engine capacity. The efficiency listed in various docs are rated relative to other parameters. That's why it can go from +10% to over 100% (a cascading model can give a +300%), but that it's not the air flow relative movement. * If you are trying to use an automotive turbo in another project it's quite complex and demanding (high-spin, sensitive oiling, cooling, etc). A real life turbo spins in excess of 120.000 RPM and the blades are quite different for intake/exhaust, something that does not show in the schematic. It converts slow-moving, high-pressure gas into fast-moving, lower pressure gas. Perhaps if your project is a little clearer we can give you a better explanation. Air tanks is not a good application.

If the technology keeps improving at the same rate, LCDs will overtake CRTs, but there are other technologies around that beat on CRTs for supremacy (Plasma?). Oh and I forgot to add to my previous post, the LCDs are (a)much more resilient to interference, allowing for worse conditions for mounting and (b) a lot cheaper to build for large screens. 8 ms means that at 125 Hz the image starts to smudge colors from one frame to the other(plus tearing, etc). In theory. In practice I expect it to start doing so from a (slightly) lower rate. Capping the monitor at 100 Hz will most likely make this almost invisible. It also only happens for color shifts so it most likely only affects high-paced/graphically intensive games (movies can be fast but they don't go at that rate). Because of the design, it doesn't affect windows or mouse movements.

6 years is quite right for a nice CRT. CRT + CRT has better colors + CRT can produce higher-quality images + CRTs have lower latency + CRT can in 99% of the cases produce a very accurate image for multiple resolutions, as opposed to LCDs that have a "designed" resolution with a cell per pixel. Which is fine if you don't leave the desktop much. - CRTs are less energy efficient - CRTs arguably have a higher health impact, even though they are improving continuously. LCD + LCD are lighter + LCDs are thinner + LCDs are more efficient + NEWER, more expensive LCDs can produce almost as much luminance as a CRT if equipped with the latest in LED back lighting. Typically, they can't match a CRT. - Lesser quality - Less versatile (not an issue if you never run things like stereoscopic, etc) So in short, CRT is still the king of image, LCD is the king of style. It's really up to you. As for the hospital, those LCDs work at designed resolutions and if you need detail, you can zoom. They are LCDs because they are cheaper and more stylish, as are most front-office monitors. You will not find a bulky high-quality monitor on a reception desk. That does not make them less. It will be a long time before I switch to LCDs. Sorry, I just like my image to be crystal-clean.

He has DSL, not ISDN. Typically, DSL can take more punishment (theoretical 8mbps limit), but nothing is quite close to the 20KB/s he gets. DSL is, however, quite sensitive to distance because of medium limitations so you should look for the maximum download rate and the minimum guaranteed transfer rate. E.g., a 256 kbps link means (depending on notations, but roughly) 256.000 bits can go through. That is, 8 bits in a byte, 32000 bytes a sec, which is some 31 KB. Substract overhead of TCP/IP and you are left with some 28 K/s. Also, remember that for some types of connections and subscriptions, a "transfer rate" is advertised which is upload + download. Not typical for DSL though. Over long distances, things like lag, loss, noise, etc can further lower your maximum speed. Even weather. If you have a 256kbps line, you might have a noisy line - for example. Or you might benchmark against a far away server. Try something close to you and match that. The ISP's outside connection might be shady. Try a download from the ISP's site itself, simplest method (not full-proof). As a rule of thumb, ask for the speed you should be getting, divide by 8 and then substract some 10-15% for overheads. A megabit line gets roughly 96-104 KB/s actual transfer. Expect more losses if connected via unshielded long distance lines like DSL. If you want the relaxed opinion of some person, my bet is you have a 200-256 kbps download line +/- some line noise. Oh and a 386-486 can handle gigabit links so computing power is not the issue, stop your worries. I also doubt there is a computer configuration issue, either.

My handwriting started to degrade with speed. Especially with my second university the teachers no longer took any pauses from fluent speech, even more, some kept speeding up when less than 10% of us were behind. I remember it degrading to a recognizable-scribble technique in which I only wrote beginning and end of words and used the length and special letters (T, L, etc) to re-guess the word. It took 3 times as long to read than to write but I was down to 6 minutes per page for sustained periods (hours). Still, my university courses stack is significantly thinner that my mother's (doctor (specialist)) so I always assumed her bad handwriting was because that. I also noticed she has very distinct signs for certain letters, those that have long tails, such as g and t, which are almost from a fancy font. I assume she uses that for orientation too. I can read her handwriting, even if very ugly because I guess the words. OTOH it might simply be genetic. Oh and I switched to capitals for new/unrecognizable/unguessable words. Capitals slow me down though. As a side note, I type slightly faster, tried to take notes on a computer and got banned from doing so because of the incessant keyboard rattling.

Gas turbines are very demanding, they are quite unsuited for road use. Spin time, fuel, exhausts, and many others make them very hard to use in an automobile (such as mentioned noise). There's a bike that has such an engine but may people consider it "not a bike" because it can't drive over anything than a straight line. While they might be quite efficient in a jet or a helicopter, a car typically varies speed so much you're probably better off with an IC engine form a lot of POV. Additionally, such a car would be quite expensive. Also, nobody would race you unless someone has another turbine engine. Speed records are held separately for piston engines and turbine/rocket powered vehicles.

That would require some 17 liters of air, with active lung capacity of roughly 4.8 liters. Assuming it worked that way in the first place. Ignoring compression, a filled balloon weighs the same as an empty balloon, because the air was there anyway, it's just "inside" now. (scratches head) Either way, air is too thin to account for 21 grams. Even body being cooled thus shrinking and displacing less air would still be too little air - even if that actually would make it heavier. So would slowing air convection around the body. Something heavier must leave the body and the scale to make it tilt. On the other hand, something weighing 21 grams being suddenly released is bound to leave an empty place, displace air, thus rendering it visible and audible. Unless you assume that something can actually weigh (be affected by gravity) and still be completely undetectable. Perhaps the scale was affected by other things, like respiration and heartbeat, other movement that kept it balanced to a point. Once the movement stopped, the balance was broken. Not exactly sure WHAT would keep a scale tilted. Or maybe it's all simpler: he added the weights, then the human. Friction in the scale kept it from tilting, to a point where "balance" was obtained. And since there must have been SOME movement (these were sick people, but not full paralysis patients), the movement dislodged the scale. Then the equilibrium could not be obtained because the human WAS lighter. In any case, given the weight the scale must support and the year of the experiment my best guess is that scale was way too imprecise to make the said measurements.

I have that too, it's decent.

You assume that an attacker would get shot by the victim which IMO is a nice, if flawed, vision of armed citizens. The attacker has the element of surprise, would most likely shoot first and aim before. If anything, crimes would have a much higher rate of success, cutting into "attempted" crime. Also, those who tend to shoot first would be favoured, so overall the population would be smaller and more aggressive and paranoid. True, in a perfect world a shooter would probably be shot too, but it's not all simple. If you saw someone shooting someone else, would you shoot? Not likely, since you have no idea why he/she fired. If you did, someone else would shoot you for shooting. And if you didn't shoot it would be much the same as today. Not that it would ever happen.

It's human nature. Most if not all people only learn some things the hard way. Still, every time I hear people (most of them young, inexperienced drivers, ironically) they did n-hundred-an-hour all I keep thinking about is "you never had a real accident, did you?". Too bad, it was a nice rant, it's just that I don't agree to most of it Particularly, it misses the fine line between burning your hand on fire and running like crazy from lit cigars and burning your hand on fire and not sticking your hand in again because it hurts with no benefit in sight. I'd qualify cowering as not driving again, as opposed to driving more careful, watching for incoming satellites. I wonder what the population of Earth would be if everyone would carry a loaded gun. As an order of magnitude.

I did no such thing. I was simply making a counterpoint as you posted about higher level languages as being bloated and used a one-liner to prove it. I feel that "bloated" should be "featured" or "with helpers" since they are not clogging anything until you use them. One of the true beauties of OO development is that you can virtually bloat it to infinity and you still get decent efficiency - given accurate knowledge of how to use it. One of the bad things is that it tends to be too much for small applications, since it tends to work in "steps". You say in your post that "You've inadvertantly [sic] proven my point about assembly". I didn't inadvertently prove anything, since I did not disagree. My point was that while you are correct you tend to see only one side of things, not both. Unless you consider that ASM programmers NEVER make mistakes they need to debug, in which care we do disagree. I hope I understood "sheer programming", I assumed you mean control over the result. You say that assembler builds character because it's damn hard. I said that being not-so-damn-hard and having a compiler looking over your shoulder saves loads of time and opens a door for less than gurus to write software. That's why we have free tools, millions of various applications, etc. Yes you are forced to concentrate harder. It's like building -say- a car atom-by-atom. Granted you get a better car, but you only get 5. Computer-design it and robot-build it and you get a billion. Not as good, granted. It's about being good enough. Yes executables are large and somewhat inefficient but it's a small price to pay. Many, many things were born simply because they were easy enough to sketch and build; they would have otherwise not existed. Point being that having a fly swatter that swats 99.9% of the flies it's thrown at but costs 500$ is a bust. One that swats 98% of the flies for 50 cents is way better. That's the point we disagree in, really. I say that the 98% swatter is better because it swats 50 billion flies a day. So while I agree that ASM gives you better control, it's quite a long way from being superior in sheer programming (or any kind of programming other than localised optimisations of tight loops or limited-environment devices) as it fails to keep up. Also, old-time programmers were better programmers by average, but it's like saying that olympic runners 20 years ago were on average better than today's runner because you include joggers. Yes they were but you shouldn't be comparing the averages. Ah, and one more point I'd like to make: All this inefficiency has a good part after all. If all executables were under a MB, all images were tightly packed and the OS still ran in 1 MB or RAM, computers would have never evolved to this level since it really is pointless to push for a 4GHz, 4 GB RAM, 400 GB storage when there is no market to it. Unintentional as it is. P.S. The point of overall efficiency is partly covered here but I'm too late somewhere to rewrite the post, sorry.

It seems a bit clumsy, but if you compare it to two human beings carrying a large weight and not seeing where they're going, it's not bad at all (other than the incessant hopping). Compared to a cheetah, well ... Nice work, still, it looks very familiar from the two-wheel balancing robot. As for pushing it, legs are way better than wheels. Eerie though, as mechanical as it looks hopping, when pushed it behaves strikingly like a live animal. That last push in the lab looked real spooky (I own 3 dogs that push each other around).

It wasn't under pressure. Natural gas also burns controllably until a pressurised container ruptures and kaboom. I agree it's safer for an outdoor leak, but a more serious rupture that would expel a decent quantity of hydrogen into the air is bound to obtain the right mix at some point. On one hand, gasoline is easier to contain; we have multiple layers, plastic, flexible rubber protections that hold the liquid in even if a tank is squashed. On the other hand, much more attention is given to a hydrogen tank than a normal gasoline one. Especially if you design a car around it. -- Anyway, back on thread, I believe the best (if not only) way we'd switch to hydrogen is if a cheap enough mix can be pumped into normal gasoline engine, LPG style. It WOULD grow into the market, just as LPG did. Out here LPG is quite popular, people retrofit such devices to normal cars, there are authorised companies that do the conversions and the option is available from factories to most if not all cars. And the only driving factor is price. The switch to hydrogen site announces 10.000$ for a kit. For a quick and dirty evaluation, 10.000$ buys some 10.000 litres of gas, and with an average 10l/100Km (typical non-US average consumption sedan), it's approximately 100.000 Km worth of gas. Even if it was 100% free of any charges for ever (never breaks, never fills), not many people drive that many Km in a single car. It would also defeat the purpose of building a small, cheap, efficient town car if you plan on 300% price. Double that for diesel (5l/100Km). Out here you can retrofit an LPG system for 300E.

On-topic IMO, there's a lot of truth in "ignorance is bliss". Intelligence is a tradeoff, just like all other features. If <for the lack of a better word> stupidity would be fatal then we'd have higher averages. The bulk of the people are here because they have something that kept them alive. It's like saying that being stronger is better. It is good but lightweight is also an advantage. Same goes for body structure, types of mind/intelligence and so on. Both the rhino and the butterfly made it through evolution. No IQ test intended for over 15 Years old tests native IQ alone, it tests the ability to see problems, the ability to dismantle issues into their components and tackle those, etc. All the above are gained through development; granted, you need biology to be kind first, still, if someone is really lazy the IQ will not show in a test. Those who took tests over years know that IQ numbers grows as experience and knowledge racks in. It's very similar to watching the best piano player in the world and pointing fingers at him because he's proud of the achievement. Yes his career is largely based on natural talent, but it's not the talent he's being proud about, it's the years of sleepless night practising. Unlike stupidity, which is truly "given", intelligence requires effort to make it shine. We are very proud and smug (as human beings) when it comes to superiority over -say- snails. But when we say "we are superior to snails" we don't mean number of grey cells (mostly). We mean suspended highways and atom smashers. And art. And whatever you feel like inserting here. The number of grey cells is just an attempt at quantifying intelligence. And not a very good one.

Only theoretically, as the MP3 encoding would have long mooshed the waveform enough to not cancel correctly. You'd get a song with lower-but-not-gone voice and loads of artefacts as the introduced noise and distortions would most likely add. @OP: Your best bets are: * Look for a karaoke version of the song. Many popular songs have one. * Use a high-powered audio editor and filter out the voice band. The results are less-than perfect but can be from acceptable by a good listener (for an adaptive multiband filter) to almost-acceptable by a bad one. This is time consuming to get right and tend to use expensive software but you have a decent shot. * Use a quick and dirty stereo remover. Voice tends to have different channel span than instrumentals. Channel mix is a nice touch for real-time filtering. If you plan on bathroom karaoke or small party this will do. For Winamp go and download a DSP filter for "vocal remover" that works by filter or/and stereo mix. There are plenty, many quite nice. Get more than one, some have a really poor implementation.

Pascal/Delphi, Java/JS, Basic/VB... I guess it depends on the definition of programming language. If it includes scripting, is it pre-compiled? Does it matter? If it doesn't I guess shell scripting is quite high on the list since most people have/use them even without being aware. It also seems to matter how you count. If by usage I'd guess that C is by far the most used since most of everything we run is C. Most likely followed by HTML (if it counts, I wouldn't count it) and J/JS. My (not-so-extensive) search by job offer seem to favour J/JS followed by PHP and other web-based scripts out here. @jeremyhfht: (bit off-topic) Yes an assembled hello world is 2k. However, a C/Delphi "hello world" takes around 2-3 seconds to build. Delphi, for example, being a RAD (Rapid Application Development) tool, you can File> New console application. A new project is created, cursor is positioned into the main sub so you type "Write('Hello World');" and hit F9. Insta-application, just add water. Let us compare time taken to develop a less-than-simple application. Yes there are optimisation penalties, but is this impact worth the time and inherent instability of directly accessing everything? (I'm assuming non-guru here, people that DO make mistakes during a few hundred lines and that use exceptions, e.g.; not to mention stuff like reference counting) I'm not saying it's not all good and I still use inline assembler when needed but since with available tools one can build a hello world within 9K and within 3 seconds it's not all bad. I did some ASM optimisations as well and I got this: * Unoptimised: 70.000 items/sec * Optimised by compiler: 250.000 * Optimised by compiler + my help (loop unrolling, variable storing, etc): 300.000 * ASM-aided: 320.000 It is more than one person's opinion that anything over 10% is not to be expected from direct assembler over code optimisation unless the code was bad to begin with. And while size is impressive for a hello world, it tends to lose edge when working with larger applications that actually use the bloatware. The larger it grows, assuming correct code, the more efficient it becomes, by reuse of bloatware (which is the purpose of building it into everything in the first place). One line takes 15K, but with 1.5M one can have 100.000 lines of code working behind it (I'm including on-the-fly compression here). Even without compression, I get 34 bytes/line on one of my projects. Also, optimisation is predictable and you can "help" the compiler. For example, I := I * 2 is slower than I := I shl 2; because the SHL actually translates into a SHL instruction. Not to mention portability. ASM is most likely the least portable ever whereas Delphi (not to mention C) can be convinced to move not only over to another OS but architecture with little to no modifications to the code if needed be. I agree that in certain environments, such as microprocessors, assembler is a huge plus, but given the option I use C, even with 2K of code memory available. My POV aside I DO agree with the backwards-learning and tutorial bits.

There are many things I want to rant about this rant but I'll just tackle one for now: Driving like a man. When I finally got my driving license I was as happy as can be. Relatively fast car, some improvements, including but not limited to wider wheels, widened car, stiffened suspensions, better brakes. Not some kid's toy but rather an improvement in handling and safety as well as raw power. Hurray for me. I was pretty upset that my beautiful vehicle had to obey the silly 50 kph town limit. Darn it, I could brake twice as fast as the next family car, handling was a dream. I kept pushing it. One day, as I was passing a (green) light, some guy ran me over from the right side. My car, 4.5 meters by 2 meters and well over a tonne was thrown over 90 degrees and a few meters, along with metal twisting and jumping through the cabin. I was lucky, car was well built, safety belt was on and responded well. I was able to get out of the car in one piece. I walked over the other car, which was in much worse shape, checking to see if I could help. In the other car I found a young(er) couple, he was driving for well under a year and didn't own a car. It was his boss' car, he borrowed it and was driving his girlfriend around to show her how real men drive. I have no idea which shock was greater, playing ragdoll inside the car and finally realizing that at the forces involved in that impact things such as bone strength are irrelevant or the fact that I was about 10 cm away from a rather unpleasant and possible fatal accident because some (excuse me) idiot felt such rules as speed limit did not apply to him. So the final question remains: He wrecked 2 cars, one beyond repair (his was scrapped), endangered his own life, his girl's life, my life, his job (should he survive) and countless others that he oh-so-luckily missed while skidding over the sidewalk for approx 30 meters. How manly is that? What price can you set over these losses? You might say this was an accident and thus not relevant. To you I say: What chance (percentage) do you give yourself of never being involved in an accident if you speed your whole life? Right. Sooner or later you'll screw up. And when you do, you'd better not be doing 100.

Quote from PortForward.com. When you forward a port, that port is bound to an IP. If you forward *all* ports, then another computer can't connect. Automatically forwarding unused ports by designation of a default DMZ will allow everyone to connect and forward incoming connections to that computer. Your original post seemed to indicate you tried to set a forwarding rule that will cover all ports. This is not the same. [edit] It took me a while to realize that my reply was basically what Dak already said. I need to pay more attention, sorry.

If it really is sync with Windows reinstall and it doesn't want to work in Linux either, them most likely the Windows setup reconfigured the drive resources in BIOS and is now conflicting (It shouldn't happen, so I'm offering it as a solution because it DOES happen). Enter BIOS setup, reset to defaults, tell it to update all configs (ESCD) and boot directly to Linux. If you are good with it, make sure it is correctly set up (I don't do Linux). Alternately, if you are good with Windows do a diagnose and try to determine whether or not it is correctly set up, no conflicts, make sure you have all updates (some features are off in Windows by default). Make sure the CD drive is set up to DMA; if Windows 2000 or XP stock make sure all DMA registry patches are set up, when in doubt manually move the drive's resources.

There are all kinds of sites each with different opinions on cycles. Some claim 90 minutes, other claim 110 and increasing each cycle. There is definitely personal preference involved. As for me, I learned that, regardless, I need a minimum 5 hours sleep. Anything less and I'm hit by a large train for the rest of the day and will not become better until I either make up for the lost hours *or* I complete a 24-hour cycle. There is such a thing as sleep debt. Naps can be useful if you don't have your needed hours. Some people need 6-8 hours, other need 9. If your schedule calls for an exact 8 hours and you need 9 a one-hour-nap will bring you back on track and revitalize the rest of your day. I tried to determine my needs by (don't envy me) sleeping as much as i liked for a 10 days period. Hours of sleep went along these lines: 20, 15, 10, 8, 9, 8, 8, 8, etc etc. Even with nothing better to do than sleep, even with all the alarms off I simply jumped out of bed 8 hours after going to sleep regardless. And well rested (uncharacteristic of me. I'm a pain to wake up. I hooked my PC to a 2x80W RMS amp). Once I got back to work the schedule changed but I now know what I need and if I can't make it I try to make up within the week or so. Since there is no definitive book on sleep, best way is to test it out.

Marriage can bring a hell of a lot more pain than pleasure if it goes wrong. In my opinion, one needs to be really careful when taking such a step. If in doubt, don't. What's there to lose if you wait? Very little to nothing. What's there to lose if you do and bork it? Quite a lot. I'm not saying not to do it, raise kids as 2 friends or somesuch. I'm saying it's hard to be TOO careful. People rarely change for the better, especially when you add habit, boredom, monotony, problems, or, (not to be mean) worse. I find it a really bad move to marry a person when you don't know how they will react to low funds, disease, etc. All relationships work like a charm when there are good conditions, plenty of food, a nice place to stay and everything is going great. Should something happen and you suddenly do something bad at work and you get fired and owe a lot of money, the last thing you want is to lose everything you have left: support, your only other income and the kids. Sorry to be the voice of mistrust, but every time I hear the long known line "lost my job, house got sold, my wife left me" the thing that comes to mind is not "you poor thing" it's "boy did you marry the wrong person". Maybe it's just me. Please disagree

Is this continuing an older thread? I have no clue how your network is arranged. Does everyone else have a fixed Internet address and going through the firewall? If so, forwarding every port makes all connections go to you. OTOH you don't need port forwarding in such a scenario. Do you have some form of sharing? Is there a server masquarading (maybe even the firewall acting as such)? If so, forwarding too many ports will leave the others with little space to work, possibly slowing down the network and making certain services unavailable. Can you give any detail of how the network is physically laid out? Ah, and there are a total of 65535 ports available (TCP). Anyway, port forwarding is supposed to keep ports reserved for your machine when you are on a private LAN and there is a server routing everything from the public IP to your LAN IP. This allows a designated machine to pipe through that port and act as a server. Also, there are other concerns to forwarding (if you moved your computer behind such a router), such as IP address change. In any case, if you forward all ports nobody else can use the connection to the Internet. You should only forward ports that you run servers on e.g. 80 for a HTTP server.

1. 50 Cal. Though if it's BOILING water than technically it will evaporate itself . One cal raises 1 gram by one degree. 50 cals will rise 50g by one degree, assumingly over 100. 2. Igloo (best isolation). When lines with skin on the inside, it can keep you at 20 deg Celsius in a -50 environment. That is, T-shirt. 3. False. Some is always heat. You can convert nothing into nothing without heat loss. 4. Changing state to a higher level absorbs heat. (evaporation chills) 5. Decrease (Don't quote me). I don't completely understand the question (language). Does it apply the work inside? Outside? 6. If it increases boiling point. The applications in automotive cooling systems and heat pumps in general is going to make that person veeeery rich. As for cooking, food will cook faster if the water boils at a higher temperature, but the taste changes so it's open for debate. 7. C (IIRC) 8. IMHO, this is a bad question. Light bulbs convert approx 5% light and 95% heat. Fluorescent bulbs go as high as 20% light. Trick question? "Ultimately" ALL energy ANYWHERE finally ends up as heat sooner or later so i guess 100% is OK for any conversion. Is this a concept test or a memory test? No bulbs do even close to those numbers. OTOH, if they do 100% heat, where's the light coming from? 9. Steam burns because it is hotter than water (100 Deg Celsius). It is true it gives more energy when it condenses on skin but that is not really why it's bad. Both are technically correct, though. C? Do NOT take this as expert advice.