Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Jan 2007 10:30 In article <45B4C70B.6B5380D0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >jasen wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'm talking about monitoring without interfering with the performance. >> >> >> >> >> >> Any additional software you run will reduce performance (by using up >> >> >> computer cycles and ram), wether the reduction is significant is upto >> >> >> you to decide. if your computer is upto the task monitoring needn't >> >> >> reduce your the speed of your internet connection. >> >> > >> >> >She's got a 486. >> >> >> >> And, until the disk strictioned, a 386. >> > >> >I never had one of those. >> >> <GRIN> I knew you were very young. > >You're joking ! No. >Not *that* young. Yes. > >In fact the first 'personal computer' I programmed was the world's first laptop - >back in 1981. >http://oldcomputers.net/hx-20.html I still think of all those as new-fangled gear. > > >> > A V30 based PC initially then jumped to 486. >> >> >> >SX25 CPU even maybe ? >> >> >> >> No. >> > >> >Well that's something at least. >> > >> >DX4 ? >> >> I'm pretty sure it's a 66 but I can't remember if JMF needed >> the arithmetic. The 386 was a D because I was going to >> do stuff. > >Ok. If you can still find one, the CPU cycles of a DX66 can be doubled with AMD's >586-133 upgrade that'll drop into most sockets. That's what my old 486 has in it. So far, there hasn't been a pressing need to webbit. The few times I can go to the library and leave the webbit headaches there when I leave. /BAH
From: unsettled on 22 Jan 2007 10:50 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <b049e$45b4d4ab$4fe74aa$7952(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > <snip> > >>>>Windows is easy when you get the >>>>knackof it. >>> >>> >>><ahem> I'm getting myself Unixed. >> >>Damn shame, that. > > > I understand we all have to go through that stage sometime. Easier to start there.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 11:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eontsk$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> > > And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider > your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively > trying to destroy its infrastructure. This is funny. Do you feel "normal" criminals recognise the law and respect it? <snip>
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 11:15 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eonvp7$1at$4(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <45AF7DB2.FB13F663(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [.. Islamic extremists vs the law ..] > >>They have no ability to undermine it. > > That may be true in England but it seems in the US they have found a way > to undermine the law. It is quite a clever trick they are using. They > pretend to be christians, spread fear and then claim that the laws must be > undermined to make people safe. > LOL. Nice.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 11:20
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eonuch$8qk_001(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45AF76BD.DD7EB5F5(a)hotmail.com>, <snip> > > Sigh! So you don't like my use of the word civilization either. > <snip> Part of the problem is you have an almost arbitrary definition of words. These words often have a different definition in more common use, but you stick to the word fitting your meaning. In addition, you seem obsessed with giving complex concepts single word definitions - this is flawed. Still, I doubt you'll change and I suspect you like tilting at windmills - the verbal confusion just helps create more windmills. |