das1330

Do other disks work? Laptop drives are rather fragile, it might be broken.

The front end looks... squished. Is that car slated for production or just a concept?

As luck would have it, I have dealt with such situations under a one minute timer. Granted, my memory is a bit dusty but I don't remember porn/virusbots being a particularly common issue, or one that was terribly difficult to clean up. While I do understand the reasoning behind the given timer I don't think the issues presented merit such a long wait.

This, but also you need to think as if a spammer got access to an account. A spambot with no flood limit can wreak havoc on boards. Having the flood limit by default makes it easy for mods to keep up. A spambot causing real trouble can be dealt with through mass-hiding posts. No more then 15 seconds or so is necessary to prevent major spam flooding.

Siggified.

(continued from last post, hit length limit) Pre-college schooling in America isn't bad, it depends on your region. New Jersey's public schools--overall--can compete with South Korean schools. Same with Massachusetts. Mississippi's schools, however, can't even compete with Mexico. The problem isn't just funding, but it's a lack of parental involvement. It's also part funding, though, as the two are linked. You see, education is funded by property taxes; this is why I laugh at people who say undocumented workers don't pay taxes to send their kids to school. So if you're in a better, more-educated area, the property taxes are higher and the schools are properly funded, and the parents are more likely than not to be involved with their child's education. Schools in the ghetto, however, are both poorly funded because people are poor, but also because both parents need to work to make ends-meet (or because there is not two parents, there's only one). Here you are half right. Socioeconomic factors do have a massive impact on school performance, funding does not. Low performing inner-city schools Invariably spend more per pupil then do high performing suburban schools. Fortunately for your conscience, federally guaranteed loans have price controls attached - they do not meet demand, but remain cheap. We already do. As I mentioned above, many excellent state schools and famous private schools are quite cheap when financial aid is accounted for. You still fail to account for taxes. Remember, nothing is free - you still pay for it in Sweeden through high tax rates. Once again, see my above response to Stanzeas' post for the explination of why you are incorrect here. In short, miracles are profitable. Let me invest $1 for a 50/50 shot at $3 and I will take you up every time. Huge risks and huge rewards are the name of the game for pharmaceutical research

Then why do they oppose ideas that were theirs when they're voted on? Yes, I do believe it. From the health care bill, to cap and trade, to just about every other measure, they have shown that they're willing to do 180's and cartwheels if it means a No to a Democratic victory. They are that cynical, they are that ruthless, they are that far-right wing nutso, and if you can't see through that, then you're too blinded in your hatred for the Democrats as well. You might say I hate the Republicans and I'm blinded, but I have evidence to back up what I'm saying. I doubt you can do the same. Times change, as does the economy. Spending billions of dollars on a program with no significant benefit like Cap & Trade makes no sense in today's economic climate; nor, for that matter, does new, expensive entitlements. While (once again) the benefits of deferring such legislation is debatable, it does not automatically mean all republicans are the devil incarnate. As to me blindly hating Democrats; I am currently employed as a partisan employee to a Democrat in congress. I like my employer. I never claimed otherwise. How is it possible to rob from the poor when The bottom 47% of Americans pays no income tax in the first place? It's rather hard to steal something that does not exist. This is so wrong. Do you even know how health care "breakthroughs" happen? Go read one of the founders of Red State (no, it's not a communist blog, it's a far right wing blog co-founded by Erick Erickson). Hint, it's not because of some fabled free-market you masturbate to at night, it's with government grants through the NIH, funded by the taxpayer: http://newledger.com...-megan-mcardle/ This (non partisan) Congressional Budget Office Study explains exactly why the government does not pay to develop new drugs. In short, NIH grants fund basic biology research without direct applications to the marketplace - in fact, that is why the government has to fund it in the first place - if the research yielded new drugs, drug companies would do it themselves as they would profit from it. Government funding =/= new drugs free to drug companies. Since you brought up inelastic demand and made a claim that government regulation in the market was superior to a free system, I thought now would be a good time for a lesson in Economics 101. Below is a beautiful graph I created in MS paint demonstrating the effects of government control on a market with perfectly inelastic demand, such as the drug market. Notice that the demand "curve" is vertical - this is due to the fact that consumers in this case must have their drugs, so they are willing to pay for as many drugs as possible. The supply curve on the other hand slopes upward, because drug companies usually begin with the "low-hanging fruit" - drugs that are cheap to develop and help many people. Drugs for less common diseases however have smaller markets, so to recoup the development costs for them each individual patient must pay more. In a free market, as you can see, supply meets demand at the intersection of the red and green lines. Now Uncle Sam walks in, creating the blue line on the graph; a price ceiling. Also known as "price regulation" the government sets a limit as to what manufacturers may charge for their products. The result? Demand is the same as before, but drug companies only produce medications up to the intersection between the blue and red line, the point where they can sustain creating new drugs.As you can see, this point is at a lower level then demand, so a shortage exists. What is lost here? Businesses like Genzyme, which produces lifesaving drugs for rare genetic conditions. At upwards of $200,000 per year, per patient the drugs Genzyme produces are not cheap, but they save peoples' lives. Such high prices are necessary because each condition effects so few people - with government controlled drug prices the business simply could not recoup the cost of production, so they wouldn't develop it in the first place. See my other responses for the particulars of price controls. Eliminating competition is covered in another Ec. 101 lesson - monopoly. I would be happy to summarize that as well if it would enlighten you. My only priority is efficiency. Single controllers are not efficient - nor are irrelevant personal attacks. Tuition is also zero at Harvard - unless you can pay for it. If you want a cheap or free education, state universities and community colleges provide a similar education to all but the best European Universities. If you want only the best, plenty of top American universities will have you, and in many cases their endowments will make the school quite cheap (or free). (Never mind the fact that the tuition is still paid for in taxes in Germany; nothing is truly free) Why you are wrong on your GDP per capita statement is a bit of a long story, so I suggest you google "national income accounting" and read about how exactly it is done. Hint: it's still counted, regardless of when it's paid for. If that was true then studies like the one done by the World Health Organisation would have placed private healthcare systems above government healthcare systems. As it stands most, if not all, of the top healthcare systems in the world are state ran. Regarding pharmaceutical companies, that is the first time I think I have ever seen an argument that suggests pharmaceutical companies don't recuperate money. If you're being a cunning realist and are serious on this point i'd like to know more information regarding the role that the US plays in subsidising R&D costs if you happen to have any interesting places where I can read about it. Cheers! With pleasure. This study uses the effects of already-existing implicit price controls in the American drug marketplce (such as medicare) to extrapolate a direct causational link between those price controls and decreased drug R&D spending. Their estimate was that the (relatively minor) price controls that exist in the American market today have cost the United States about $260 billion in R&D spending and 200 million life-years over the past 30 years. This summary of a study corroborates the above using a more recent attempt at drug price regulation, what is commonly referred to as "ClintonCare" to achieve the same result. This study investigated the effect of Italy's reducing patent rights for drugs (which effectively controls costs) on development of new pharmaceuticals there. The findings? Italian businesses ruthlessly copied foreign-developed drugs, which cut prices there to a fraction of those in the rest of the world, and essentially stopped Italian R&D on new drugs. In short, they were free-riding off of those who paid the fair market value for drugs. If you want more, just say so - I know several people with a working paper on this topic. And there is the swift blow to Cuba's system, praised by Kofi Annan, held in esteem by the majority of the world as a lesson in third world healthcare management and exported across the Caribbean Sea to South American countries. We'll ignore the "like most oppressive communist states" comment politically and move forward with accusations of padding nationwide statistics. To begin with, it is laughable that you say nationwide statistics in these "oppressive communist states" are often manipulated, as if it was almost something that doesn't happen in Western democracies. Nevertheless, it also ignores the many independent reports into Cuban healthcare and the stone cold fact that a lot of the continued support for Castro finds its source in the fantastically socialised services he brought to Cuba - the top one being healthcare. To draw back on your previous point above, Cuba is far and away more efficient than the US system and far more efficient than the UK system. Of course Cuban healthcare is provided more cheaply then in Western Countries - such things happen when you pay doctors 15 Dollars Per month, which is not unusual for countries which prohibit immigration - by obtaining your most expensive input (skilled personnel) cheaply, total cost is bound to go down. Once again, this mechanism only works in an oppressive state - if immigration were allowed, those personnel would vote with their feet, leaving the country until a competitive market rate was paid for their skills. As to statistics padding, ABC News wraps up the basics in a nutshell. Businesses are in business to make money. The money they make creating lifesaving drugs is reinvested to create more lifesaving drugs, to make more money. If they did not make money, they would not be able to create any drugs at all. For the particular economics of this fact, see above.

This argument simply makes no sense whatsoever as you fail to account for the numerous other factors that influence debt finance. Looking at these two specific countries without considering their current financial position, prospects for future growth, credit lines and operating deficit, among other things, leads to flawed comparisons. Further, before Ireland's austerity measures, it was one of the greatest debt risks in Europe, alongside Greece - in short, right from the beginning Spain was in a better position and thus your comparison fails. You don't honestly believe this, do you? The Republicans are attempting to fix an unprecedented problem in the American economy, just as everyone else is. That they took a different position from the democrats is not necessarily wrong - nobody is truly able to accurately predict the limits of the United States' sovereign debt, so austerity may be necessary. Government control of healthcare is problematic for two reasons. First, the government (or any other central planner) is simply not efficient at allocating resources to needs - this is essentially the same reason why communism does not work. Second, price controls (a common element of most socialized healthcare plans) serve to limit innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, as companies cannot recoup the development costs for drugs with anything less then a massive potential audience. Like any binding price ceiling, this leads to a shortage in the market IE people dying unnessesaraly due to the price controls. This already happens today, with the United States subsidizing drug development costs for places with controlled markets, like Europe. Cuba, like most oppressive communist states, is known to pad nationwide statistics (which are self reported) in order to look good for the international community.

Since nobody was killed and no oil spill has been reported, it would seem that all of the safety features aboard the rig worked correctly - which is necessary for drilling to be successful.

Junior in high school; I have a rather hectic schedule. AP Language & Comp Linear Algebra (@ university) Advanced physics (@ university) Intermediate Macro- and Microeconomic theory (@ university) AP chemistry AP Biology AP phycology AP Euopean History Science Research

First, test the board. If you did not snap the pin yourself it may simply be an unused pin. If the pin is needed, then you are a little less lucky. A quick google search revealed that American Megatrends is in the business of making BIOS chips and SMSC is a contract manufacturer of silicon, so the chip is not optional - you need it for the computer to function properly. Such small soldering jobs are rather difficult, you may wish to see if a local electronics fabrication business may be able to help you (regular soldering irons nearly always mess up on such small jobs.)

Zombies. Mal-ware occupied computers can unknowingly seed software. Also, the FBI can "seed" torrents then trace the IP of anyone who downloads and bust them. The government does not track bittorrent downloads - even if you were sued for downloading something it would be a civil, not a criminal suit so the government would not be involved. That said, Adobe does not mind students torrenting photoshop - it is students' familliarity with the program that perpetuates their control of the market, as virtually all graphic artists use adobe software.

Aside from the quotes in my signature, I have found flag officers of the United States military to be quote - creating machines. Such quotes include: No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. - Gen. George S. Patton We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way. - Gen. George S. Patton I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you [bleep] with me, I'll kill you all - Gen. James Mattis Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. - Gen. James Mattis Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur

its ironic because the rally is led by the very kind of person who qualifies as a moron. Also, smaller government is not necessarily good. In nearly all conceivable cases small government allowing private industry to fulfill the public's needs is more economically efficient then a large government. For proof, just look at what has happened to Europe.

I think that a teleporter is an excellent idea - so long as deep philosophical issues are avoided. There, the answer becomes more murky.

I do not have a direct job, nor am I looking for one - I simply do not have time with other commitments. Still, I do some market research work for my parents' businesses.

I think in English and occasionally French (mostly just when I am speaking it however, usually only in France)

65 degrees Celsius is perfectly normal for a computer CPU. Most have thermal limits of around 90 to 100 degrees Celsius before their thermal protection system activates and shuts the component off, so you are well within normal operating parameters.

Still another two full weeks until school starts for me, and I am dreading going back to my eighty hour weeks - only having minimal work to do is nice.

The small heatsink covers the Northbridge; the chip that handles communication between the processor and the rest of the motherboard. The paste you found is known as thermal glue - it's essentially the same thing as thermal paste, but with a glue component mixed in to make the connection harder to break (as the sink is not designed to be removed by the end user). A similar product can be found here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835100013&cm_re=thermal_adhesive-_-35-100-013-_-Product . Simply reattaching the heatsink with the provided clips should be sufficient to ensure thermal conductivity - a perfect bond isn't really necessary.

Dust in and of itself is not harmful to a computer in any way. People simply dislike dust because it clogs up their fans and impedes cooling performance. So long as you make sure to clean out the fans occasionally, you will be fine in this regard. You should be fine. While you should be careful to determine that no nails, thumbtacks or other metallic pieces sit on the wall, the board itself hanging from a clean, painted piece of wood will be perfectly safe. When I was ~8 years old I did this to my computer too with an old pentium 4. I bent the pins back into place and everything worked again. While this depends on your particular situation, so long as the pin was not damaged when you bent it back it should continue to work fine. Further, there is no danger in turning it on - if the processor is broken it just won't work. So far as I know most components should be perfectly fine no matter which orientation they are in. Just be careful when you nail it to the wall that you coat the nails in something non-conductive to prevent short circuits. Inside the computer itself you should remember that a standard motherboard sits on it's side anyhow, and in different case designs most other components do too, so they are all designed for this. As long as you are not using huge graphics cards it will work fine. Hope this helps!

From a technical standpoint, practically all LCD panels are made in one of three or so factories out in Asia. As a result, regardless of which model (or price) you pick your picture will be very similar, unless you go with more exotic technologies (which are quite expensive) like RGBLED and OLED. As a result, if I were you I would pick the least expensive TV that fits your chosen size, resolution, and other specifications. Most of the marketing hype is just that - hype. 120 or 240 Hertz refresh rates are useless for regular people as they can't actually perceive the difference - it's just too fast for the eye to pick up.

Your degrees are 4 years so that's an extra year anyway. British degrees concentrate on depth rather than breadth. The reason for that is that American universities want to make as much tuition money as possible, so the longer they have their students messing around studying Philosophy when they ultimately major in Chemical Engineering, the more money they get. British universities are largely funded by the taxpayer, so the government wants to get students in and out as soon as they can, and there's no time for messing around trying out other things. Only a small fraction of American universities are funded in large part through tuition. Most large state schools gain most of their money through state government appropriations, and all of the famous schools (Harvard, Yale, MIT etc) have endowments reaching the tens of billions of dollars which they use to provide for their students. I know Harvard paid out more then 300 million dollars last year in scholarships, such that they don't make much money from students staying longer - plus, nearly all universities in the US are non profits, so they really don't care about how much they pull in (per student).

Your degrees are 4 years so that's an extra year anyway. British degrees concentrate on depth rather than breadth. The reason for that is that American universities want to make as much tuition money as possible, so the longer they have their students messing around studying Philosophy when they ultimately major in Chemical Engineering, the more money they get. British universities are largely funded by the taxpayer, so the government wants to get students in and out as soon as they can, and there's no time for messing around trying out other things. Only a small fraction of American universities are funded in large part through tuition. Most large state schools gain most of their money through state government appropriations, and all of the famous schools (Harvard, Yale, MIT etc) have endowments reaching the tens of billions of dollars which they use to provide for their students. I know Harvard paid out more then 300 million dollars last year in scholarships, such that they don't make much money from students staying longer - plus, nearly all universities in the US are non profits, so they really don't care about how much they pull in (per student).