I agree with you though I might have been able to accept them going to "Amish-Tech" -- Even metal plows, wood cutting tools, leather tanning, etc. etc. were all high tech of a certain age or other. But to drop down to sticks and stones is just ridiculous. After working so hard to survive for years, they're now going to ensure that at least 95% of the survivors die in the next two years from simple things, like lack of food, or lack of gear to analyze berries and roots aside from the "what happens when I eat this" test. They should have just pulled a Cavil -- at least they'd have avoided the suffering.
It isn't like their brains went back to stone age. They of course possess all the knowledge of the civilization they are leaving behind. They know how to farm, know how to make weapons, know how to make medicine and drugs, and even understand the theory of computers and could eventually build them if they chose.
So they are leaving nothing behind but possessions, not the knowledge that made those possessions.
I would imagine people wouldn't think of them as victimless crimes if the people and corporations they were ripping off most of the time were multi-millionaires.
They are of course bringing it out on xbox 360 as well, but not sure how that will work out given the 9 gig max dvd size... Could the game spawn 5 discs...
AMD says will result in 'dramatic performance and performance-per-watt gains.'
Okay, that's marketing talk. I think that at virtually *ANY* presentation of a new CPU in the last twenty years someone had said that.
Me, I just have a 6-yrs-old P4 laptop which, compared to nowadays new models w/ Core Duo, isn't much different.
This because there are other bottlenecks: hd speed, RAM, etc.
So, why upgrade, for a desktop user? Even for middle business servers, we live with two 8-yrs-old Sun machines which are more than adequate for keeping up all the services we need internally. We never have CPU spikes.
Sometimes I just wonder if all this isn't just a grab at customer pockets.
You are wrong. Everything else being equal, a CPU upgrade won't do much for you. However, that is rarely what happens. If you have a 3 year old computer and compare it to a new computer, the speed improvements will be vast in every single area of usage, except maybe Internet download speeds. If it doesn't feel faster, then put the same software on it and it sure will be.
I don't think anyone is saying throw your car away and buy a new one. But the car you have will eventually wear out, and at that time maybe you will be environmentally conscious enough to decide your next auto will be a hybrid. Selling a perfectly good car to buy a new one just to save 30% on fuel bills is ridiculous.
You are correct on evolution, but evolution is irrelevant in this case. I speak only of advancing our species. If we dumb down everything to the point that no one dies by making things 100% safe and medicine 100% effective, the least of us will grow in numbers faster than the best of us, causing an overall dilution of intelligence and health on a whole.
If you are much smarter than me, you have a lesser chance of becoming a drug addict, homeless, dying before reproducing and so on. So you see, intelligence, as well as all sorts of attributes make some people more likely to survive than others, with probably wealth/socio-economic status being the largest indicator. I am saying if we create the ultimate safety net for the genetically or socially unfit, it will be a detriment to our species.
Should we really be saving lives? Wouldn't making things more dangerous really allow our civilization to prosper, returning to a survival of the fittest like era? Saving lives takes away much needed jobs from many industries, and allows the less fit to just keep on breeding. Of course, that is not practical from a humanistic point of view, but if you think purely logical, I think you'll see it makes sense to just let people die!
What does the valuation of a company have anything to do with this article? Apple is worth a lot more than the other companies because they sell a brand, always have, probably always will. Their computers are nothing other than a pretty package with a pretty GUI on an old reliable system that comes at a price that is nearly 2x what a DUI system of similar specs and OS would cost.
Brand awareness is everything to Apple. Dell makes way more money than Apple does, yet they are worth 1/4 as much. Brand is Apple's genius.
I don't find this comment insightful. Why should regular users need to understand their computer? It is a tool and it shouldn't matter how it works, as long as it works. Imagine if you had to be a mechanic to drive a car, or an electrician to watch a TV. We geeks seem to forget lay people don't want to know what a memory leak is, and shouldn't have to know. The exact problem with Linux is that you are forced to know more about how it works than you are with Windows, which is what many people don't want. Unfortunately, knowing more about the machine always makes for a better experience.
Except Microsoft's clients demand backwards compatibility all the way to MS DOS 1 days. No other consumer based OS can boast that can of compatibility. Ubuntu apps from 3 years ago still work.. so what, thats only 3 years. try running an MS-DOS app from 1987 and having it still work on (32-bit) Vista. If Linux or OS-X can do that, then maybe businesses will use them more (for their workers, not servers in the case of Linux). I wish MS could get rid of all the backwards compatibility. Hopefully with Windows7 you can get rid of those old modules and run a lean mean modern OS that is uber fast and doesn't take up 15 gigs.
I am currently trying to get into this kind of development, but it seems like all postings for such jobs want tons of experience. My university clearly failed me in this department, so it seems like the only option is to find some router and write a custom firmware for it or do some other kind of embedded program. The only problem with this is I fathom it will take quite some time to get the necessary skills to work at it professionally, and I would imagine one would lose interest in a year. Takes experience to get experience it seems.
No matter what you think, Ubuntu is not as user friendly as any version of Windows. If you had never used a computer before, then yes maybe you could learn the Ubuntu/Linux way of doing things, and it would make sense. But most people come from Windows/Mac, and making the switch to Linux is kinda brutal on anyone but the technical savvy. Microsoft doesn't make their products for niche markets, they make them for the masses, and the masses shouldn't have to know how a computer works, what a kernel is, or what their PATH points to.
There doesn't have to be a law against something to sue someone. I'd advise that you read up on Civil vs. Criminal Law. If someone causes you harm in some way, even if there isn't an explicit law against it, you can sue them. If you prove your case and win a judgment, then this case becomes "case law", and effectively becomes a new law. This is how law works in Common Law countries like the USA and Britain. Law isn't written by legislators usually; it's written by Judges. People who complain about "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" would do well to learn this. You are indeed correct. But keeping to the topic at hand, there is no law currently preventing ISP's from doing what they are doing, so you would have to sue and prove you were harmed in some way by this action. Harmed significantly to warrant a lawsuit and the ISP to be penalized. Given these criteria, I personally feel it would be a stretch to win a lawsuit and create some precedent for further lawsuits to rely on. Hence, going back to the original point, I feel there would have to be a law from the top to ensure 'Net Neutrality' is enforced. This is the whole reason some groups are trying to get Congress to table the neutrality bill and make it become law. If that was unnecessary, because the court scenario described above was easily attainable, then these groups are wasting their time.
What do you think?
Was it not news when it happened in Maine? Wouldn't it be newsworthy whether it happened anywhere? And I think just because it happened once we should not talk about it anymore. This is probably some of the most important news on this site!
I like this idea. Something just as effective would be to put a tattoo on their forehead with their crime. That way all people will know what they did. If you murder someone, a big M on your forehead would let everyone know, and probably save a few people from you. If you got convicted of drunk driving, a nice DD on your forehead would show people that you cannot be trusted behind the wheel. Felons would have to check in every year to make sure the tattoo has not been removed. A perfect solution!
Its just a form of preemptive justice. He killed him before he hurt someone else. I only hope this justice prevails throughout society so no one ever has to be hurt again!
It sucks, but frankly the only way for regular people to actually fight big business is through the courts. Unfortunately that is a major method. But another less used method is to lobby your elected officials to act on your behalf, and then withhold votes from those candidates that do not follow your wishes. Its a crazy idea, but I think it might work. Easy to say of course, but I think writing some letters and making some phone calls is within the average persons grasp more readily than going to court.
That law exists. It's called "copyright." It's typically enforced through lawsuits. But there are lots of filtering techniques. Is it a copy right violation if Comcast slows down sites from Verizon's network? I don't think so, but it should be disallowed nonetheless. A law would have to be created first to make that illegal, then they could be sued for doing it if they continued. Or you could sue because you are personally harmed by this action, but that may be hard to prove in court.
Instead of suing for everything, we could just make a law to prevent this. However, the members of government have no desire to lose a source of revenue for their campaigns, so really they won't do it. Unless the voters have a say... wouldn't that be a concept, asking voters what they want instead of deciding for them because of your own personal benefit. Oh what a glory that would be!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you though I might have been able to accept them going to "Amish-Tech" -- Even metal plows, wood cutting tools, leather tanning, etc. etc. were all high tech of a certain age or other. But to drop down to sticks and stones is just ridiculous. After working so hard to survive for years, they're now going to ensure that at least 95% of the survivors die in the next two years from simple things, like lack of food, or lack of gear to analyze berries and roots aside from the "what happens when I eat this" test. They should have just pulled a Cavil -- at least they'd have avoided the suffering.
It isn't like their brains went back to stone age. They of course possess all the knowledge of the civilization they are leaving behind. They know how to farm, know how to make weapons, know how to make medicine and drugs, and even understand the theory of computers and could eventually build them if they chose. So they are leaving nothing behind but possessions, not the knowledge that made those possessions.
I would imagine people wouldn't think of them as victimless crimes if the people and corporations they were ripping off most of the time were multi-millionaires.
They are of course bringing it out on xbox 360 as well, but not sure how that will work out given the 9 gig max dvd size... Could the game spawn 5 discs...
Okay, that's marketing talk. I think that at virtually *ANY* presentation of a new CPU in the last twenty years someone had said that.
Me, I just have a 6-yrs-old P4 laptop which, compared to nowadays new models w/ Core Duo, isn't much different.
This because there are other bottlenecks: hd speed, RAM, etc.
So, why upgrade, for a desktop user? Even for middle business servers, we live with two 8-yrs-old Sun machines which are more than adequate for keeping up all the services we need internally. We never have CPU spikes.
Sometimes I just wonder if all this isn't just a grab at customer pockets.
You are wrong. Everything else being equal, a CPU upgrade won't do much for you. However, that is rarely what happens. If you have a 3 year old computer and compare it to a new computer, the speed improvements will be vast in every single area of usage, except maybe Internet download speeds. If it doesn't feel faster, then put the same software on it and it sure will be.
I don't think anyone is saying throw your car away and buy a new one. But the car you have will eventually wear out, and at that time maybe you will be environmentally conscious enough to decide your next auto will be a hybrid. Selling a perfectly good car to buy a new one just to save 30% on fuel bills is ridiculous.
You are correct on evolution, but evolution is irrelevant in this case. I speak only of advancing our species. If we dumb down everything to the point that no one dies by making things 100% safe and medicine 100% effective, the least of us will grow in numbers faster than the best of us, causing an overall dilution of intelligence and health on a whole. If you are much smarter than me, you have a lesser chance of becoming a drug addict, homeless, dying before reproducing and so on. So you see, intelligence, as well as all sorts of attributes make some people more likely to survive than others, with probably wealth/socio-economic status being the largest indicator. I am saying if we create the ultimate safety net for the genetically or socially unfit, it will be a detriment to our species.
Should we really be saving lives? Wouldn't making things more dangerous really allow our civilization to prosper, returning to a survival of the fittest like era? Saving lives takes away much needed jobs from many industries, and allows the less fit to just keep on breeding. Of course, that is not practical from a humanistic point of view, but if you think purely logical, I think you'll see it makes sense to just let people die!
Heh, I had to read through some of your other comments. Its clear you're a hater :) I dig the hate.
You're right. I have no retort for such a well structured and logical argument. I will buy a Mac as soon as soon as I can save up the cash.
They sell way more computers than Apple... I figured that would be obvious.
What does the valuation of a company have anything to do with this article? Apple is worth a lot more than the other companies because they sell a brand, always have, probably always will. Their computers are nothing other than a pretty package with a pretty GUI on an old reliable system that comes at a price that is nearly 2x what a DUI system of similar specs and OS would cost. Brand awareness is everything to Apple. Dell makes way more money than Apple does, yet they are worth 1/4 as much. Brand is Apple's genius.
I don't find this comment insightful. Why should regular users need to understand their computer? It is a tool and it shouldn't matter how it works, as long as it works. Imagine if you had to be a mechanic to drive a car, or an electrician to watch a TV. We geeks seem to forget lay people don't want to know what a memory leak is, and shouldn't have to know. The exact problem with Linux is that you are forced to know more about how it works than you are with Windows, which is what many people don't want. Unfortunately, knowing more about the machine always makes for a better experience.
If the treaty is not beneficial to the citizens of the signing country, than said country should ignore/withdraw from the treaty.
i have no idea. I would imagine some. libs always going missing ya know.
Except Microsoft's clients demand backwards compatibility all the way to MS DOS 1 days. No other consumer based OS can boast that can of compatibility. Ubuntu apps from 3 years ago still work.. so what, thats only 3 years. try running an MS-DOS app from 1987 and having it still work on (32-bit) Vista. If Linux or OS-X can do that, then maybe businesses will use them more (for their workers, not servers in the case of Linux). I wish MS could get rid of all the backwards compatibility. Hopefully with Windows7 you can get rid of those old modules and run a lean mean modern OS that is uber fast and doesn't take up 15 gigs.
I am currently trying to get into this kind of development, but it seems like all postings for such jobs want tons of experience. My university clearly failed me in this department, so it seems like the only option is to find some router and write a custom firmware for it or do some other kind of embedded program. The only problem with this is I fathom it will take quite some time to get the necessary skills to work at it professionally, and I would imagine one would lose interest in a year. Takes experience to get experience it seems.
No matter what you think, Ubuntu is not as user friendly as any version of Windows. If you had never used a computer before, then yes maybe you could learn the Ubuntu/Linux way of doing things, and it would make sense. But most people come from Windows/Mac, and making the switch to Linux is kinda brutal on anyone but the technical savvy. Microsoft doesn't make their products for niche markets, they make them for the masses, and the masses shouldn't have to know how a computer works, what a kernel is, or what their PATH points to.
Was it not news when it happened in Maine? Wouldn't it be newsworthy whether it happened anywhere? And I think just because it happened once we should not talk about it anymore. This is probably some of the most important news on this site!
I like this idea. Something just as effective would be to put a tattoo on their forehead with their crime. That way all people will know what they did. If you murder someone, a big M on your forehead would let everyone know, and probably save a few people from you. If you got convicted of drunk driving, a nice DD on your forehead would show people that you cannot be trusted behind the wheel. Felons would have to check in every year to make sure the tattoo has not been removed. A perfect solution!
Its just a form of preemptive justice. He killed him before he hurt someone else. I only hope this justice prevails throughout society so no one ever has to be hurt again!
But that is the point, there is no law preventing this, so how can you sue for it?
Instead of suing for everything, we could just make a law to prevent this. However, the members of government have no desire to lose a source of revenue for their campaigns, so really they won't do it. Unless the voters have a say... wouldn't that be a concept, asking voters what they want instead of deciding for them because of your own personal benefit. Oh what a glory that would be!