Only to still replace it with air cooling further down the line.
Sure, admittedly so, of course. The point, though, is clearly to be able to use a larger or otherwise better air cooler in the end, which I can certainly see being the point in this case, seeing is how the PCI specification gives too little room for a proper cooler on the card itself, especially if it's going to fit in only two slots.
It's mostly a matter of incompetence in the implementation, indeed. The Java vulnerabilities I have followed have always included calling some obscure part of the Java class library which is implemented using native code (mostly for optimization reasons) that happened to be buggy in some way.
It should be said in this case, however, that the new Java 7 dynamic language support infrastructure, which is one of the things Oracle added since they took Java over. Many of the things Oracle has done to Java lately (and especially as additions in Java 7) have struck me as poorly designed features that just allowed Oracle to check of some feature-lists to make Java appear as "feature-complete" as dotnet.
You don't normally use LVM for RAID1 (you can, but it kind of sucks and is a bit immature). Normally, you'd use mdraid for that, and then construct a LVM PV from the resulting mdraid device(s).
Neither ext3, LVM nor mdraid checks for silent corruption, however. That's strictly a feature of filesystems like ZFS or btrfs that explicitly checksum all data.
But somehow you do need to be a libertarian to think that expecting those that have benefitted the most from society to pay towards its upkeep is theft.
How about contributed the most to society? If you look at it that way, you might start to wonder why they should have to pay extra for having provided people with their needs.
Congress doesn't write laws. Corporate ghost writers write laws and Congress signs them.
I guess that's what you get for not paying attention to congressional elections instead of the, in reality, completely inconsequential presidential election which instead has become the only election anyone seems to care about in the US these days. The entire reason why your founding fathers designed the electoral college system is because there's really no need to elect the president popularly -- he is merely the chief of the executive branch, whose task it is to carry out what Congress decides. You're not supposed to elect him "for his political agenda" (if anything, that's what the congressional elections are for; though I'd argue otherwise in another rant), but for his ability to lead the government. Which is why he was supposed to be elected by professional electors tasked with the elucidation of such properties in people.
See, you're better off over there then we are here in the Democratic People's States of Europe precisely because you get to elect your congressmen personally, rather than voting for pre-selected party lists as we get to do under our varieties of proportional voting. It means that you actually can elect people on such virtues as incorruptibility and honesty, rather than the ability to climb the party ranks by spouting the party line.
Electing a president popularly based on "political agendas" is, if anything, directly undemocratic, since it implies that the entire nation has to elect as one entity, leaving the majority with no other choice than to oppress the minority (where, of course, the "minority" is 45% or so of the people).
Disregarding the facts that the healthcare/insurance and banking industries are so regulated that they can hardly be considered private enterprise, and that the blame for the recession lies, apart from the aforementioned regulation, with the Fed and the government-run banks like the FNMA; what strikes me the most with your post is this:
It kinda amazes me that people with a healthcare system that is useless in the middle of a global recession all under the management of private industry, then dare to ask whether government can run things.
If not that, then what do you suppose they should ask? Is not the determination of the means by which the ends sought should be attained, indeed, the foremost question that should be on everybody's mind? Should regulation just be tried at random just because anything might be better? If that is the mindset of the regulators, then I finally understand why laws look the way they do.
(By the way, I don't think the US healthcare system is such an utter failure as you make it out to be. You should try living over here in Europe for a while.)
(3) at least one study indicates that placing commonly used keys far apart, as with the QWERTY, actually speeds typing, since you frequently alternate hands; and
That point almost makes your study sound suspect, though, since one of the main points with Dvorak is supposed to be that the keys are placed so as to make hand-alternation is frequent as possible.
I don't use Dvorak myself, by the way. I just thought that sounded weird.
Methinks that's missing the point. Judging by the summary, what his friend misses isn't crafting or just housing, but the opportunity to be a griefing fucktard with impunity. He doesn't miss just housing (which half the games have nowadays anyway), but more specifically thieving, which in the context of housing really boiled down to exploiting some clipping bug to nick someone's furniture that per the game rules you shouldn't have had access to. Basically he's missing a game that's equally half-baked, buggy, exploitable, and with equally piss-poor GM support, so he can be as big a griefer as in the good old days of UO.
As one of the writers of Haven & Hearth, I have to disagree. The reason me and my friend wanted to write the game is that we wanted a world where the actions that players can perform actually have an impact on the world itself, rather than just another theme park where you can just enjoy yourself withing the very strict frame set by the authors of the game; and those of our current players that seem to enjoy the game the most seem to agree with that. It leads naturally to a game world where the emergent phenomena become the most defining feature of the world, rather than the mechanics that we, as the game authors, build into it. The coolest thing about the world, if I may say so myself, is that there isn't a single structure in the world that hasn't been built by the players themselves.
It is true, of course, that theft and raiding are important parts of that, and the primary enjoyment of many players is the politics that arise out of factions competing with each other; but mind you that theft and raiding does not necessarily equal "griefing". In Haven, despite only having a few hundred players, there are actual wars being played out without us authors having to write a back-story for them. We don't have to write a back-story at all since that can be done entirely by players; and it also leads to a story that the players can actually care about since they are part of it themselves, rather than having had it pushed upon them.
I shan't pretend that Haven isn't buggy and exploitable, but those are things that we do plan to remedy before going into beta without having to rip out the most defining aspect of the game, viz., its mutable world. "Piss-poor GM support", as you put it, is an intended feature: We don't want to set the rules for the game any more than is necessary as a part of writing basic game mechanics, and in the end, we believe that it leads to a more meaningful player experience since players don't have to be bothered by any arbitrary rules of morality that we may set up. The point is that most of our players don't want to be "griefers" -- they simply want to be a meaningful part of the game world itself, which they cannot be in a theme-park game like WoW. I don't want to pretend everyone wants a game like that (there is obviously a reason why WoW has four or so orders of magnitude more players than we do), but it's not like it's just for griefers.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
While you, on the other hand, would need to learn to capitalize and write proper sentences. And yes, I read that using neither a calculator nor an ASCII chart.
AFAICT, the only reason we're all using Flash is that it was a stop-gap measure to deal with the fact that normal video support in web browsers wasn't what it should have been.
What I don't understand, though, is what was wrong with the <object> tag. It could be used to embed the client's favorite media player into the page to play a video over HTTP, could it not? What does the <video> tag do that the <object> tag couldn't?
Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe