I had an AMD 486DX-40 system with two VLB slots. I had both VLB graphics and multi-I/O. Before the Pentium era, a motherboard didn't usually have all the basic I/O on it, so you had to buy a card with serial, parallel, and usually an IDE controller on it. Anyway, the second most annoying thing with VLB is that it ran at your FSB speed, so if you had a 25 MHz FSB you could have three cards, 33 MHz you could have two. I had 40, so I was only supposed to have one. It was surprisingly stable, but when I had the occasional video glitch I understood why it happened and could deal. It got better when I dumped the Computer Shopper white-box special for a DX2/80 with a decent ASUS board.

The most annoying thing with VLB being, of course, that every card was almost full-length because the VLB part sat behind the ISA slot. They popped out all the time.

First, I'd politely suggest that the first step toward constructive discussion is not to patronize the person you're talking to. Condescension might make you feel great, but isn't a great way to start a difficult discussion.

OTOH, if you're actually genuine about believing that "anyone who doesn't agree with global warming doesn't understand science"...then you might want to check your biases. There are a LOT of scientists - including some climatologists - who disbelieve the all or parts of the current paradigm that "the planet is warming and humans are the main cause". Let's use, for example, Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) who's shown that observed temps are *radically* different than pretty nearly all the climate models put forward by the IPCC: http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/d... ...if that doesn't make you suspicious of "sky is falling" predictions by the IPCC, what would?

As you posted AC, and I don't even know if you'll come back to respond, it's not worth a comprehensive discussion here, so I'll be as succinct as possible. (If you do come back, and want to have a constructive dialogue, I'd be happy to.)
First, we'll set aside all of planetary history before the last 3m years (because they were warmer), I'd invite you to look at this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
or more zoomed in for specifics: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

There are *clearly* nearly-vertical temperature and CO2 spikes every 100k years or so. The last one was about 100k years ago.

If something happens repeatedly, say, a dozen times in a row, in a reasonably consistent cycle, and then it happens a 13th time, a reasonable observer is going to assert that what ever caused the previous 12 is causing the 13th, and whatever caused them to end will ALSO cause the 13th to end. The fact that you happen to be present to see the 13th, doesn't mean you're the cause.

First, warm, but not the hottest dozen in history. Do you even realize when you're being absurdly hyperbolic?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com...
(from the 1990 IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports...)

Second: Climatologists have been scrambling for an explanation of why their models predicted constant warming, but it seems to have vanished for much of the past 15 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article...
This has led to the current theory that the oceans have absorbed far more warming than modeled previously. Could be science, or could be desperately shifting goalposts. Your mileage will vary based on your politics, most likely.

But all in all, the society we've created - that largely includes (and one might say is a result of) jobs filled by people sitting at their desks - in the net has resulted in an increased lifespan. That's incontestable.

Teasing out causality is a challenge, of course, and I wouldn't presume to do so, but the simple fact is that we are - in terms of health & lifespan - better off than we were in 1940.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE WANT.

I know this is a crazy idea, but maybe we could have a serious discussion about what our government spends its money on, instead of just continuing to write checks for every bloody social program or war we feel like funding, and then kicking the can to future congresses by coming up with a "sequester" that takes a flat cut of every budget.

I mean, yes, at least taking a TINY bit from each budget is better than never cutting spending at all, but that result is what you get when the room is filled with incompetents too stupid to compromise/prioritize in any way.

Two points:
1) the fact that we're the wealthiest nation with the highest standard of living ever in human history, and are having this discussion is pretty pathetic.
2) Congress is largely to blame, but POTUS gets much of this as the nation looks to him for leadership, yet he cheerfully - like everyone else in Washington, largely in both parties - as if the money will never really run out. Every SOTU speech is filled with new programs he wants to enact, and new things to spend $ on. To repeat:

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE WANT.

I know, I don't belong in politics. Clearly, I'm irrational by Washington standards.

(Since I agree that science-by-democracy is stupid)

Does that mean we can ALSO expect Global Warming folks to stop spouting the phrase "an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on..."

Or is it ok for one side, but not the other?

Seriously, though: while I again agree that this vote was stupid, let's all be very clear that the response to Global Warming - whatever the cause - is entirely political.

If you have a problem, it's entirely reasonable to ask specialists about the problem, the causes and consequences. But as we don't have infinite resources to address every problem in existence, choosing WHICH problem to try to solve is not a scientist's choice, it's a political choice.

I strongly doubt Global Climate Change is driven by human activity, and even I think this is stupid.

Adminstrator: You are suspected of being a cyberbully. Give me your password to Facebook.

Cyberbully: No.

Administrator: Uh....

After a dozen years of the IPCC insisting temps would go up and them not doing so, one might accuse you of cherry-picking "this year".

Yeah, I'm sure these will be used with at least the same intellectual rigor and restraint of any internet discussion, and not applied willy nilly to everything people disagree with emotionally or politically.

How is that self-controlled navigation working - image recognition based on ground features? Because otherwise, they're navigating using GPS or the equivalent. Interfere with that by saturating them with the same freqs, and they'll have no idea where they are. Sure some sort of inertial navigation system might be viable, but probably not with the precision needed to get some small drone as close to its specific target as such small devices would need to be (presuming they're not just spraying bio-hazards and the like over a football stadium or some such).

Don't forget the other faces of anti-GG. Like Wu, who just turned around and supported the doxer of Milo Yiannopoulos. These people and their CON are just plain fucked up in the head.

/. is now turning into "gaming, shit, and garbage." It's just like kotaku...