When you need to be in tune with the band's piano? Or drums?
And how would a guitarist develop an ear for pitch if he never has to tune his own instrument?
Most guitarists can tune by ear in a matter of a few minutes, if not seconds. A guitarist who can't tune his own guitar by ear is akin to a programmer who can't write his own makefile. Sure, they exist, somewhere, but nobody wants to admit it.
Besides, if you don't have an ear for proper pitch, how do you bend notes?
This makes sense. They don't want to think about license compliance. They'd rather just let Microsoft do the audit for them and send them a bill, than risk someone installing a few extra, unlicensed copies of XP, and getting a nastygram from the BSA. From the standpoint of executives, any time spent on non-core-business activities (i.e. license compliance) is wasted time and lost money.
Most businesses would rather hand MS a blank check and be done with the issue than spend time auditing their own systems. That audit takes time away from their employees that could be better spent on making sales, a better product, better customer service, etc...
Of course, if they used Linux they could do away with the whole license thing as well, but that would require thought on the part of their employees. And getting the employees in the average business to think is a lot more difficult than convincing the shareholders that a blank check to Microsoft is a good idea.
with exceptions for specific laws, eg. hate speech, where they apply
Problem is, one man's freedom of speech is another man's hate speech.
If I feel oppressed or offended by you pointing out the flaws in my religion, then I have grounds to have your account terminated under hate speech laws.
If your religion condemns my sexual choices, then I can have your speech banned under most hate speech laws.
If you question the holocaust, or are even unsure of the numbers killed (was it four million? or six?), then your speech can be banned under hate speech laws.
Hate speech laws are just that - they hate your freedom of speech. There are already laws on the books which prevent threatening and defamatory speech; the reason for hate speech laws is to prevent discussion on a particular topic, instead making it illegal to publicly espouse a position contrary to the politically correct one enshrined in law. The goal is to silence dissent and prevent critical thought on the issues of the day. The end result is that a small minority of politically connected people are able to force their particular vision of morality on the rest of the public.
Sure, you might think that someone who doesn't like homosexuality is a bigot; as long as hate speech laws exist, you'll never discover that there are some very good arguments against homosexuality, and that most who object to it do so not out of hatred, but because they've seen the effect it has had on
But if I invest in Novell's (Suse) Linux(TM), will my Windows work with Linux? Or will I have to buy the Novell version of Windows for that to happen?
Those of us old enough will remember when Microsoft had certain licensing deals with Compaq, and if you bought a Compaq server, you also had to buy Compaq Windows NT, which was quite a bit more expensive than the Redmond version. If you tried to get around this by just buying the server and installing Microsoft's Windows NT, you'd find yourself with a dead machine - the BIOS actually checked the Windows version, and if it didn't have the Compaq magic number, would refuse to continue loading it.
I can foresee a time when Windows will check to see if it is connecting to an "authorized machine" - presumably, to improve security - and that it will simply fail to connect to a Linux box, unless it is running an MS-approved version. (aka, Suse).
The only reason why Microsoft tolerates Novell is because they realize that Linux has replaced UNIX in a lot of corporate environments. As soon as Linux becomes widely used on the desktop, Microsoft will treat Novell as they've treated all of their past partners. Novell seems not to understand this - they can market their version of Linux only to the extent that Redmond blesses it, and that is truly sad.
If history has taught us anything, it is that companies - regardless of original intent - always construe the meaning of contracts in the manner most advantageous to the company.
This clause may not be intended to be enforced against individual users, but as soon as a customer becomes critical of AT&T and starts costing them money, the company lawyers will find this clause and silence them.
Legislators draft laws in an effort to appear "Tough on crime" or to "Protect the children", knowing full well that they won't pass the muster of the courts.
Why do they do this?
It's political posturing, nothing more. The laws passed are so vague that they could not possibly stand up to the scrutiny of established case law, much less Constitutional questions. It's an old trick, by which the politician can say to his constituents, "Look! I passed laws to protect children, but that darned Supreme Court struck them down..." By trade, most politicians are lawyers, so they can draft legislation which they know is contrary to established Constitutional and case law and will be struck down. But they get the benefit of the public belief that they are doing something about the child-porn bogey man.
And what happens? We on/. make much of laws which were never intended to be enforced.
But what happens when one of these vague laws is enforced, and found not vague enough to be declared unconstitutional? Or the accused can't afford a good lawyer?
You can already access spreadsheet content from Visual Basic, and include VB script in spreadsheets. The same scripting ability which allows the "wow" features in spreadsheets also creates the potential for abuse - remember macro viruses? Suddenly, documents which formerly contained only data now contained executable code, and it gave rise to a security nightmare.
Yes, today, with VBA, you can do what the article mentions. In fact, it's been possible for years. Problem is that:
Very few people use it, and
Those who do use it tend to use it poorly.
Yes, you can back end a website with your spreadsheet. But why would you? A spreadsheet is a horrible way to manage data; there's no referential integrity checks, no versioning, no security, and doesn't scale well. Furthermore, your crucial data is tied to a particular application, rather than a database.
Just like VBA, it's a nice nerd's toy, but the wise system programmer recognizes that it has limitations.
It's not the stance on abortion wrt to contraceptives and STD's that's bothersome, but that these are ads which, 20 years ago, would not have been shown on television because the subject nature was considered too personal. It just goes to show that the networks' pretense of decency is just that - a pretense. They don't care what they broadcast so long as it doesn't disturb their political sensitivities. And considering that the airwaves are technically a publicly-owned, shared resource, it should disturb quite a few people that free speech is being stifled on their airwaves. It would be different if the entire network was private and privately owned, but the fact that the airwaves are public means that they are the public square. Yes, we have every right to demand the networks respect free speech, because the airwaves belong to us, not them. Yet the networks behave as if they own the airwaves, and the public is complicit.
The number of companies that support Planned Parenthood, I was quite surprised to read that it was pro-choice messages that were being blocked.
IIRC, (and that's a big if) - just recently, a network covering the superbowl refused to carry a pro-life ad because of its "controversial" nature.
Think about that for a moment. They'll advertise contraceptives and STD medications on tv on a regular basis, (Toddler voice: Daddy, what's an S-T-D?), yet refuse to accept money for pro-life advertising. You would think that any business with any advertising standards whatsoever wouldn't allow ads for something as personal as human sexuality, yet, they go on with wanton abandon. But as soon as someone wants to talk about the consequences of sex (i.e. unwanted children), they suddenly become moralists?!
The so-called standards to which Corporate America(TM) holds itself are completely arbitrary and capricious. Anyone who thinks that having any corporate control over media needs to re-examine the history of Corporate America in light of its effects on influencing the freedoms of the little guy through lobbying and oppressive legislation (Taft-Hartley, anyone?). Sure, you may be pro-choice or pro-life, but no matter what you are, it needs to be recognized that corporate control of communication networks effectively subverts the Constitutional freedoms our ancestors worked so hard to attain.
said the decision 'feels like a death knell' for Vonage because future revenue will likely dry up, preventing the
company from investing in better technology or improving customer service."
Sharon, you must think we're a bunch of chumps. We didn't get to be big phone companies by being nice, you know. Better service and lower prices? Did you really think we'd let you get away with that little stunt?
Why do you think we pushed patents in the first place? Monopolies have always been about better profits, and never about better customer service or value. Quite charming that someone out there actually believes in such antiquated notions, really.
I believe, Sharon, you are just beginning to understand how a phone company is supposed to work. Better customer service? Hah! We're here to make a profit, and while your little charade was entertaining, it's high time you got on with being serious about being a phone company.
I mean, honestly, when was the last time one of your customers was on hold for more than a half hour before finally giving up? And you call yourselves a phone company...
Better technology? Are you serious? Why, that costs money, you know. Did you really believe our lawyers would let you get away with that?
If you don't like the way the software behaves, you can change it. This is one of the fundamental freedoms the FSF endorses. In fact, I would say this is a perfect example of the open source model in action:
User doesn't like a feature of the software.
User disables feature in source code, recompiles, and improves the software.
The sad thing is that Microsoft and other proprietary vendors have been so successful at convincing the general public that they should be at the vendor's mercy when it comes to bug fixes and feature requests that even Open Source users have come to believe the software originator's blessing is required.
Un-warp your brains. Experience freedom. Fork it if you don't like it, and let the people decide which version they like better.
on modern Intel CPUs, the overwhelming majority are used to compensate for the fact that the CPU is ridiculously faster than the memory to which it interfaces. IOW, the cache. These CPUs consume between 80 and 120 watts of power. The reduced power versions use only 50.
By way of comparison, the 1 GHz AMD Geode runs on about 1 watt of power, and ARM processors can get by for even less.
By way of further comparison, a register to register transfer can be completed in 1/2 clock cycle. Contrast this with a read-modify-write memory cycle where a word is fetched from one memory location, modified, and written to a distant location, which will take 4 memory cycles (which typically runs at 1/2 or less of the clock speed of the CPU).
The power consumption problem is due more to the fact that compensating for this difference in speed requires a large SRAM cache on the die. And even then, it's not perfect - if you do things which routinely involve cache misses (such as video encoding, etc...) the CPU is stuck operating at the effective speed of the memory bus.
The key to reducing CPU power consumption is to use lower-latency memories, which require smaller on-die caches for a given performance level. We could double the throughput of DDR SDRAM by simply demultiplexing the address and data busses, similar to the way SRAM functions. There's no requirement in the underlying storage structure of DRAM to require separate row and column addresses; it's just a historical artifact. Originally, before DRAM and SDRAM became popular, computers were built with SRAM because its lower latency allowed even slow CPUs to work efficiently. But DRAM promised lower cost (via fewer bus lines) and lower power consumption (bits stored in charged capacitors, rather than cross-coupled transistors), at the price of latency, and the rest, unfortunately, is history.
When 9/11 happened. She probably does not understand the impact that it had on the psyches of Bostonians, especially those involved in air travel.
In a post-9/11 world... We have lost all common sense.
How about some more prattling, "In a post-9/11 world..."
How can we justify airline employees not being able to differentiate between a bomb and breadboard? Flying with electronic prototypes (complete with wires hanging out) used to be a regular part of my job. I've been twice searched by security with such devices and never held at gunpoint.
How can we justify hiring and retaining officers who cannot immediately recognize the difference between something likely to be a bomb and an electronic project? (HINT: explosive is required. Wires and lights alone won't work). You would think that with the recent Mooninite (sp?) scare, police would have updated their training. Apparently not.
How did she even get into the airport in the first place? She was wearing it! How did security miss that? If she had been a bomber, she could have killed quite a few people, and yet security didn't react until an employee called them.
Quite frankly, what she did probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. But the reaction is appalling; what will happen when a toddler breaks his electronic toy and the wires spill out? Will the toddler be held at gunpoint? Will Boston charge the parents with creating a hoax device?
If anyone doesn't believe that stupidity and authority don't mix, they need look no further than Boston.
USB allows multiple hosts on the same bus without collisions. Ethernet requires only one host on the same physical "bus" to avoid collisions. To get switched ethernet, you have to use a router, which requires additional cost.
That the Do Not Call list provides telemarketers with a list of names and numbers to call, for those of us who might forget to re-register. Isn't it convenient that the Federal Government has actually assisted telemarketers by providing them with a list of confirmed names and numbers, which they will be legally allowed to call after the expiration date?
A lot of us signed up for the Do Not Call list hoping that we wouldn't receive these kinds of calls. Instead, we were betrayed by both the Feds and the industry.
Oh, wait - it's not locked in the first place. It does everything the iPhone does, except calls, and cost $300 less. Actually, it does more - I can run whatever code I please, and even write my own programs on the Palm. iPhone owners share the dubious distinction of owning a computer they aren't legally allowed to program.
I'd like to own an iPhone. Honestly, I would. But, though I can pay for the phone, only AT&T can own it. Jobs, Apple, and AT&T want it that way, and if you've paid for an iPhone, you've essentially told them that they can have your cake and eat it too.
The very thing which makes the computer such an enabling device is that it can be reprogrammed to perform almost any task. Unlike the single function devices of the past - such as a calculator, which performs at most one function - a computer is a totally open piece of hardware. The task which it can be programmed to do are limited only by the ingenuity and creativity of the programmer/user.
Until now. With the advent of cellphones, especially locked ones, we are seeing a new trend in computers. Rather than expanding the functionality of computers, they seek to limit it, in order to serve the greed of Corporate America. A device which formerly could be repurposed for any task the owner thought fit is now restricted to performing only the functions which make the manufacturer money. Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.
And here ends the computer revolution. A formerly beautiful piece of machinery, capable of solving almost any problem, is reduced to serving the utilitarian greed of corporations, in effect, an intellectual slave of the willfully ignorant.
How long before the same happens to the PC? When a PC can only be bought in conjunction with an internet service, and users are legally prevented from installing their own software?
I hope those who buy the iPhone are prepared to deal with a future in which everything they possess is owned and licensed by a corporation. Because they're paving the way for the increased use of restricted, defective by design, hardware.
Is there any good, technical reason that is keeping us from having truly UNIVERSAL serial communications?
Yes.
Let me explain:
USB, per standard (host side), must be able to source at least 500 mA. Even though there is a PoE (Power over Ethernet) standard, most choose not to implement it by default. Hence, ethernet can't power devices like flash drives and hard drives.
USB uses four wires, ethernet twice as many. USB is a synchronous bus, meaning that there are (theoretically, at least) no collisions. A properly operating USB device will not stomp on someone else's data packet. Thus, for the given bitrate, a higher portion of the bandwidth is available to applications. Unlike ethernet, adding devices to the same physical connection will not degrade the overall bandwidth of the network. In practice, I've found 100 Mbit ethernet devices operating with a maximum throughput of about 35-40 Mbits/second because of collisions. And this was with *two* devices! To get a better throughput requires using routers (which minimize or eliminate collisions).
RS232 is a pretty universal serial communication standard. However, it is also slow.
There are tradeoffs between maximum cable length and the speed of the bus.
There are tradeoffs between the number of signal lines and the cost of the device.
There are tradeoffs between bitrate and the device cost.
So, the reason why we don't have a universal serial standard is because the different interfaces were designed with different goals in mind.
There are people on the net dumb enough to believe a distant, heretofore unknown relative needs their services to get a few million dollars out of their African country. And there are enough of them for this kind of fraud to cost Americans millions of dollars a year.
There's a big difference between "don't care" and "wanting more surveillance".
I too, have met the I'm-an-idiot-so-I-have-nothing-to-hide type. However, their indifference is fueled by their trust in humanity, and the fact that for most people, getting struck by lighting is a greater risk than being falsely imprisoned by their government for political reasons. Those without any political convictions won't ever be political prisoners.
I could accept that 75% are indifferent. What is unacceptable is translating "indifference" to "wanting more surveillance". I believe it is more correct to say that the average American doesn't want to be bothered by the question of surveillance, a subtle, but important difference. It doesn't mean they want more surveillance, but that they consider the appropriate level a surveillance a question better answered by the police. If they had to personally share the cost of the cameras; if the cameras inconvenienced them in some way, they'd probably take a different view.
Interestingly, we, the public, don't seem to mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance.
I think we've just found the next Jason Blair.
I have to call bullshit on this one. In my entire life, I have met atheists and believers, gays and straights, liberals and conservatives, and not once, ever, in my life have I met someone who espoused more surveillance. Now, I live in a large metropolitan area - one with numerous projects involving installing more surveillance cameras, and even the most conservative, cop-loving suburbanites are at best indifferent, and quite often, vehemently opposed. There's a lot of hostility, but absolutely no support. The law of statistics would dictate that if 75% of the population supported more surveillance, I would have - at least once in my life - have heard someone argue in support of it. But I've never heard it from anyone. Not even the most gullible of idiots or stupidest of patriots I've met has ever said they'd like to see more surveillance.
I thought the problem the Church had was not that it rejected Greek thought, but rather, accepted too much of it. Had the Church not accepted the Greek geocentric model of the universe, the works of Copernicus and Galileo would not have provoked any controversy at all. At one point, the Greek model of the universe was taught as dogma, a position later abandoned when the Church realized that such a position was both untenable, and beyond the expertise of the Church. ("The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the Heavens go...")
The fact that Christians in Europe thought the Earth flat was probably due more to their own, general ignorance, than anything else.
Or, more likely, because any fool can see that the Earth is flat. No need to investigate the obvious, right? Imagine yourself in the middle ages insisting the Earth is round - you'd be roundly ridiculed by even the most inveterate idiot.
You know what gets me? That we are not immune to such idiocy. I can't help but wonder if some theory will replace evolution that will make evolution look just as stupid as the flat Earth theory. I doubt it will be Creationism in its current form, but it does occur to me that things taken as obvious are not necessarily correct. Even though evolution seems to be the best explanation now, there are problems with it as a theory. In fact, the round-Earth theory was known long before medieval Europe, yet Europe through its ignorance of history continued to believe the flat-Earth theory. It's very possible that the in the future we'll discover evidence which bolsters the logical problems with the theory of evolution, and people will regard evolution-believers with the same disdain our society reserves for the flat-Earthers.
In retrospect, the correct understanding is always obvious, once something has been properly explained. People who ridicule flat-Earthers in the middle ages forget that at the time, it made the most sense given the data. The fact that it was ridiculously incorrect should serve as a warning to those who trust science; the discovery of additional data can easily overturn what the scientific community, and the population at large, believe to be correct.
My problem with the evolutionists is not that it is science, but rather, that people hoist their religious beliefs upon the fragile framework of science. Yes, I've met people who don't believe in God because of evolution. That makes as much sense as
believing in a flat Earth. Science is limited to a tentative and often incorrect theory of how the universe operates. When evidence shows a theory false, it is discarded; but what will happen to those who chose not to believe in God because of the errors of science? It's not a religion, and you shouldn't treat it with the authority of truth. Sure, we can use science to inform us of how to build a bridge or put a man on the moon, but when it comes to matters of eternal significance, it is utterly insufficient. The fact that people take evolution as gospel only damages the credibility of those scientists who are actually doing good work in their fields, and understand the limitations of their discipline.
I think the real question is not a matter of what if, but rather when, evolution is shown to be incorrect, will you still believe in it? If so, you're more a religious fanatic than a rational person. The fact that someone doesn't believe in evolution might just be an indication they're thinking in bigger terms than you.
What, Lazarus being brought back to life after being dead for days doesn't count? Or do you just discredit sources with which you disagree?
When you think about, if your rationale for source inclusion is limited to only those sources with which you agree, you'll never, ever, see evidence of a miracle. It would seem there's some circular logic going on in atheist circles - an atheist will argue that no credible source has verified a miracle; yet any source which mentions miracles is immediately disqualified from discussion as being "religious" in nature. So, from the atheist's internal perspective, their arguments seem rational; yet from the perspective of an outside observer, it seems they are just as dogmatic as their religious brethren who believe without understanding why. Both groups are willing to exclude from consideration sources which originate from those who hold viewpoints with which they disagree. It protects the fragile positions they hold from further scrutiny, and protects them from becoming enlightened.
The interesting thing about Catholicism is that we've found that science often confirms our faith. I find it odd that while I (a Catholic) have little problem accepting scientific theories, most atheists have a very difficult time understanding and accepting scripture. It would seem their minds are not large enough to accommodate multiple, orthogonal explanations for events (scientific, philosophical, political, etc...) Is an atheist able to rationalize apparently contradictory explanations (for example, by understanding the witnesses see from different perspectives)? Is an atheist able to comprehend that sometimes, explanations just don't exist, or are sometimes beyond the ability of human reason?
I have not closed my mind to things which initially challenged my faith. And for a while there was a time when I struggled with things like evolution, etc... But I did not give up; rather, I gained a larger perspective, a greater understanding of the world than I would have gained had I just decided to believe either evolution or creationism, and arbitrarily dismiss the other side. I would like to see atheists take the same approach to religion; just because you personally have not seen evidence of God doesn't mean that others have not. Even I didn't dismiss the most ardent proponents of evolution as fools; rather, I came to realize the reason why they espoused such theories was because their focus was too small; it wasn't that evolution wasn't true, per se, but that it was only a very small piece of a much larger puzzle. It was finding the ways in which my faith and science fit together that provided a much greater understanding of the universe. I didn't need to argue either creationism or evolution, because the debate was pointless.
But my heart goes out to atheists who cannot, or will not, understand the Universe from anything other than a scientific standpoint. Those who cannot confront ambiguity and contradiction will find themselves simply dismissing observations which do not fit into their preconceived notions of how the universe should be. And unfortunately, such a situation precludes any enlightenment or increase in understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
When you need to be in tune with the band's piano? Or drums?
And how would a guitarist develop an ear for pitch if he never has to tune his own instrument?Most guitarists can tune by ear in a matter of a few minutes, if not seconds. A guitarist who can't tune his own guitar by ear is akin to a programmer who can't write his own makefile. Sure, they exist, somewhere, but nobody wants to admit it.
Besides, if you don't have an ear for proper pitch, how do you bend notes?
This makes sense. They don't want to think about license compliance. They'd rather just let Microsoft do the audit for them and send them a bill, than risk someone installing a few extra, unlicensed copies of XP, and getting a nastygram from the BSA. From the standpoint of executives, any time spent on non-core-business activities (i.e. license compliance) is wasted time and lost money.
Most businesses would rather hand MS a blank check and be done with the issue than spend time auditing their own systems. That audit takes time away from their employees that could be better spent on making sales, a better product, better customer service, etc...
Of course, if they used Linux they could do away with the whole license thing as well, but that would require thought on the part of their employees. And getting the employees in the average business to think is a lot more difficult than convincing the shareholders that a blank check to Microsoft is a good idea.
... most who object to it do so not out of hatred, but because they've seen the effect it has had on individuals (AIDS, etc..).
with exceptions for specific laws, eg. hate speech, where they apply
Problem is, one man's freedom of speech is another man's hate speech.
Hate speech laws are just that - they hate your freedom of speech. There are already laws on the books which prevent threatening and defamatory speech; the reason for hate speech laws is to prevent discussion on a particular topic, instead making it illegal to publicly espouse a position contrary to the politically correct one enshrined in law. The goal is to silence dissent and prevent critical thought on the issues of the day. The end result is that a small minority of politically connected people are able to force their particular vision of morality on the rest of the public.
Sure, you might think that someone who doesn't like homosexuality is a bigot; as long as hate speech laws exist, you'll never discover that there are some very good arguments against homosexuality, and that most who object to it do so not out of hatred, but because they've seen the effect it has had on
I want a Linux that works with Windows.
But if I invest in Novell's (Suse) Linux(TM), will my Windows work with Linux? Or will I have to buy the Novell version of Windows for that to happen?
Those of us old enough will remember when Microsoft had certain licensing deals with Compaq, and if you bought a Compaq server, you also had to buy Compaq Windows NT, which was quite a bit more expensive than the Redmond version. If you tried to get around this by just buying the server and installing Microsoft's Windows NT, you'd find yourself with a dead machine - the BIOS actually checked the Windows version, and if it didn't have the Compaq magic number, would refuse to continue loading it.
I can foresee a time when Windows will check to see if it is connecting to an "authorized machine" - presumably, to improve security - and that it will simply fail to connect to a Linux box, unless it is running an MS-approved version. (aka, Suse).
The only reason why Microsoft tolerates Novell is because they realize that Linux has replaced UNIX in a lot of corporate environments. As soon as Linux becomes widely used on the desktop, Microsoft will treat Novell as they've treated all of their past partners. Novell seems not to understand this - they can market their version of Linux only to the extent that Redmond blesses it, and that is truly sad.
If history has taught us anything, it is that companies - regardless of original intent - always construe the meaning of contracts in the manner most advantageous to the company.
This clause may not be intended to be enforced against individual users, but as soon as a customer becomes critical of AT&T and starts costing them money, the company lawyers will find this clause and silence them.
Legislators draft laws in an effort to appear "Tough on crime" or to "Protect the children", knowing full well that they won't pass the muster of the courts.
Why do they do this?
It's political posturing, nothing more. The laws passed are so vague that they could not possibly stand up to the scrutiny of established case law, much less Constitutional questions. It's an old trick, by which the politician can say to his constituents, "Look! I passed laws to protect children, but that darned Supreme Court struck them down..." By trade, most politicians are lawyers, so they can draft legislation which they know is contrary to established Constitutional and case law and will be struck down. But they get the benefit of the public belief that they are doing something about the child-porn bogey man.
And what happens? We on /. make much of laws which were never intended to be enforced.
But what happens when one of these vague laws is enforced, and found not vague enough to be declared unconstitutional? Or the accused can't afford a good lawyer?
And does it poorly. And insecurely.
You can already access spreadsheet content from Visual Basic, and include VB script in spreadsheets. The same scripting ability which allows the "wow" features in spreadsheets also creates the potential for abuse - remember macro viruses? Suddenly, documents which formerly contained only data now contained executable code, and it gave rise to a security nightmare.
Yes, today, with VBA, you can do what the article mentions. In fact, it's been possible for years. Problem is that:
- Very few people use it, and
- Those who do use it tend to use it poorly.
Yes, you can back end a website with your spreadsheet. But why would you? A spreadsheet is a horrible way to manage data; there's no referential integrity checks, no versioning, no security, and doesn't scale well. Furthermore, your crucial data is tied to a particular application, rather than a database.Just like VBA, it's a nice nerd's toy, but the wise system programmer recognizes that it has limitations.
It's not the stance on abortion wrt to contraceptives and STD's that's bothersome, but that these are ads which, 20 years ago, would not have been shown on television because the subject nature was considered too personal. It just goes to show that the networks' pretense of decency is just that - a pretense. They don't care what they broadcast so long as it doesn't disturb their political sensitivities. And considering that the airwaves are technically a publicly-owned, shared resource, it should disturb quite a few people that free speech is being stifled on their airwaves. It would be different if the entire network was private and privately owned, but the fact that the airwaves are public means that they are the public square. Yes, we have every right to demand the networks respect free speech, because the airwaves belong to us, not them. Yet the networks behave as if they own the airwaves, and the public is complicit.
We already have a unit of energy. It's called the joule, and one joule per second is called a watt.
That means that a kilowatt-hour is 3,600,000 joules.
Kilowatt-hour? Why not just use the SI unit, instead of making your own, metric-sounding mix of American and international terminology?
The number of companies that support Planned Parenthood, I was quite surprised to read that it was pro-choice messages that were being blocked.
IIRC, (and that's a big if) - just recently, a network covering the superbowl refused to carry a pro-life ad because of its "controversial" nature.
Think about that for a moment. They'll advertise contraceptives and STD medications on tv on a regular basis, (Toddler voice: Daddy, what's an S-T-D?), yet refuse to accept money for pro-life advertising. You would think that any business with any advertising standards whatsoever wouldn't allow ads for something as personal as human sexuality, yet, they go on with wanton abandon. But as soon as someone wants to talk about the consequences of sex (i.e. unwanted children), they suddenly become moralists?!
The so-called standards to which Corporate America(TM) holds itself are completely arbitrary and capricious. Anyone who thinks that having any corporate control over media needs to re-examine the history of Corporate America in light of its effects on influencing the freedoms of the little guy through lobbying and oppressive legislation (Taft-Hartley, anyone?). Sure, you may be pro-choice or pro-life, but no matter what you are, it needs to be recognized that corporate control of communication networks effectively subverts the Constitutional freedoms our ancestors worked so hard to attain.
said the decision 'feels like a death knell' for Vonage because future revenue will likely dry up, preventing the company from investing in better technology or improving customer service."
Sharon, you must think we're a bunch of chumps. We didn't get to be big phone companies by being nice, you know. Better service and lower prices? Did you really think we'd let you get away with that little stunt?
Why do you think we pushed patents in the first place? Monopolies have always been about better profits, and never about better customer service or value. Quite charming that someone out there actually believes in such antiquated notions, really.
I believe, Sharon, you are just beginning to understand how a phone company is supposed to work. Better customer service? Hah! We're here to make a profit, and while your little charade was entertaining, it's high time you got on with being serious about being a phone company.
I mean, honestly, when was the last time one of your customers was on hold for more than a half hour before finally giving up? And you call yourselves a phone company...
Better technology? Are you serious? Why, that costs money, you know. Did you really believe our lawyers would let you get away with that?
After all, just who do you think we are?
You have the source code, right?
If you don't like the way the software behaves, you can change it. This is one of the fundamental freedoms the FSF endorses. In fact, I would say this is a perfect example of the open source model in action:
The sad thing is that Microsoft and other proprietary vendors have been so successful at convincing the general public that they should be at the vendor's mercy when it comes to bug fixes and feature requests that even Open Source users have come to believe the software originator's blessing is required.
Un-warp your brains. Experience freedom. Fork it if you don't like it, and let the people decide which version they like better.
on modern Intel CPUs, the overwhelming majority are used to compensate for the fact that the CPU is ridiculously faster than the memory to which it interfaces. IOW, the cache. These CPUs consume between 80 and 120 watts of power. The reduced power versions use only 50.
By way of comparison, the 1 GHz AMD Geode runs on about 1 watt of power, and ARM processors can get by for even less.
By way of further comparison, a register to register transfer can be completed in 1/2 clock cycle. Contrast this with a read-modify-write memory cycle where a word is fetched from one memory location, modified, and written to a distant location, which will take 4 memory cycles (which typically runs at 1/2 or less of the clock speed of the CPU).
The power consumption problem is due more to the fact that compensating for this difference in speed requires a large SRAM cache on the die. And even then, it's not perfect - if you do things which routinely involve cache misses (such as video encoding, etc...) the CPU is stuck operating at the effective speed of the memory bus.
The key to reducing CPU power consumption is to use lower-latency memories, which require smaller on-die caches for a given performance level. We could double the throughput of DDR SDRAM by simply demultiplexing the address and data busses, similar to the way SRAM functions. There's no requirement in the underlying storage structure of DRAM to require separate row and column addresses; it's just a historical artifact. Originally, before DRAM and SDRAM became popular, computers were built with SRAM because its lower latency allowed even slow CPUs to work efficiently. But DRAM promised lower cost (via fewer bus lines) and lower power consumption (bits stored in charged capacitors, rather than cross-coupled transistors), at the price of latency, and the rest, unfortunately, is history.
When 9/11 happened. She probably does not understand the impact that it had on the psyches of Bostonians, especially those involved in air travel.
In a post-9/11 world... We have lost all common sense.
How about some more prattling, "In a post-9/11 world..."
Quite frankly, what she did probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. But the reaction is appalling; what will happen when a toddler breaks his electronic toy and the wires spill out? Will the toddler be held at gunpoint? Will Boston charge the parents with creating a hoax device?
If anyone doesn't believe that stupidity and authority don't mix, they need look no further than Boston.
USB allows multiple hosts on the same bus without collisions. Ethernet requires only one host on the same physical "bus" to avoid collisions. To get switched ethernet, you have to use a router, which requires additional cost.
That the Do Not Call list provides telemarketers with a list of names and numbers to call, for those of us who might forget to re-register. Isn't it convenient that the Federal Government has actually assisted telemarketers by providing them with a list of confirmed names and numbers, which they will be legally allowed to call after the expiration date?
A lot of us signed up for the Do Not Call list hoping that we wouldn't receive these kinds of calls. Instead, we were betrayed by both the Feds and the industry.
Oh, wait - it's not locked in the first place. It does everything the iPhone does, except calls, and cost $300 less. Actually, it does more - I can run whatever code I please, and even write my own programs on the Palm. iPhone owners share the dubious distinction of owning a computer they aren't legally allowed to program.
I'd like to own an iPhone. Honestly, I would. But, though I can pay for the phone, only AT&T can own it. Jobs, Apple, and AT&T want it that way, and if you've paid for an iPhone, you've essentially told them that they can have your cake and eat it too.
The very thing which makes the computer such an enabling device is that it can be reprogrammed to perform almost any task. Unlike the single function devices of the past - such as a calculator, which performs at most one function - a computer is a totally open piece of hardware. The task which it can be programmed to do are limited only by the ingenuity and creativity of the programmer/user.
Until now. With the advent of cellphones, especially locked ones, we are seeing a new trend in computers. Rather than expanding the functionality of computers, they seek to limit it, in order to serve the greed of Corporate America. A device which formerly could be repurposed for any task the owner thought fit is now restricted to performing only the functions which make the manufacturer money. Consumer benefit beyond the original purpose of the device is explicitly and legally forbidden.
And here ends the computer revolution. A formerly beautiful piece of machinery, capable of solving almost any problem, is reduced to serving the utilitarian greed of corporations, in effect, an intellectual slave of the willfully ignorant.
How long before the same happens to the PC? When a PC can only be bought in conjunction with an internet service, and users are legally prevented from installing their own software?
I hope those who buy the iPhone are prepared to deal with a future in which everything they possess is owned and licensed by a corporation. Because they're paving the way for the increased use of restricted, defective by design, hardware.
Is there any good, technical reason that is keeping us from having truly UNIVERSAL serial communications?
Yes.
Let me explain:
So, the reason why we don't have a universal serial standard is because the different interfaces were designed with different goals in mind.
There are people on the net dumb enough to believe a distant, heretofore unknown relative needs their services to get a few million dollars out of their African country. And there are enough of them for this kind of fraud to cost Americans millions of dollars a year.
I'm not at all surprised.
There's a big difference between "don't care" and "wanting more surveillance".
I too, have met the I'm-an-idiot-so-I-have-nothing-to-hide type. However, their indifference is fueled by their trust in humanity, and the fact that for most people, getting struck by lighting is a greater risk than being falsely imprisoned by their government for political reasons. Those without any political convictions won't ever be political prisoners.
I could accept that 75% are indifferent. What is unacceptable is translating "indifference" to "wanting more surveillance". I believe it is more correct to say that the average American doesn't want to be bothered by the question of surveillance, a subtle, but important difference. It doesn't mean they want more surveillance, but that they consider the appropriate level a surveillance a question better answered by the police. If they had to personally share the cost of the cameras; if the cameras inconvenienced them in some way, they'd probably take a different view.
Interestingly, we, the public, don't seem to mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance.
I think we've just found the next Jason Blair.
I have to call bullshit on this one. In my entire life, I have met atheists and believers, gays and straights, liberals and conservatives, and not once, ever, in my life have I met someone who espoused more surveillance. Now, I live in a large metropolitan area - one with numerous projects involving installing more surveillance cameras, and even the most conservative, cop-loving suburbanites are at best indifferent, and quite often, vehemently opposed. There's a lot of hostility, but absolutely no support. The law of statistics would dictate that if 75% of the population supported more surveillance, I would have - at least once in my life - have heard someone argue in support of it. But I've never heard it from anyone. Not even the most gullible of idiots or stupidest of patriots I've met has ever said they'd like to see more surveillance.
Reference please?
I thought the problem the Church had was not that it rejected Greek thought, but rather, accepted too much of it. Had the Church not accepted the Greek geocentric model of the universe, the works of Copernicus and Galileo would not have provoked any controversy at all. At one point, the Greek model of the universe was taught as dogma, a position later abandoned when the Church realized that such a position was both untenable, and beyond the expertise of the Church. ("The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the Heavens go...")
The fact that Christians in Europe thought the Earth flat was probably due more to their own, general ignorance, than anything else.
Or, more likely, because any fool can see that the Earth is flat. No need to investigate the obvious, right? Imagine yourself in the middle ages insisting the Earth is round - you'd be roundly ridiculed by even the most inveterate idiot.
You know what gets me? That we are not immune to such idiocy. I can't help but wonder if some theory will replace evolution that will make evolution look just as stupid as the flat Earth theory. I doubt it will be Creationism in its current form, but it does occur to me that things taken as obvious are not necessarily correct. Even though evolution seems to be the best explanation now, there are problems with it as a theory. In fact, the round-Earth theory was known long before medieval Europe, yet Europe through its ignorance of history continued to believe the flat-Earth theory. It's very possible that the in the future we'll discover evidence which bolsters the logical problems with the theory of evolution, and people will regard evolution-believers with the same disdain our society reserves for the flat-Earthers.
In retrospect, the correct understanding is always obvious, once something has been properly explained. People who ridicule flat-Earthers in the middle ages forget that at the time, it made the most sense given the data. The fact that it was ridiculously incorrect should serve as a warning to those who trust science; the discovery of additional data can easily overturn what the scientific community, and the population at large, believe to be correct.
My problem with the evolutionists is not that it is science, but rather, that people hoist their religious beliefs upon the fragile framework of science. Yes, I've met people who don't believe in God because of evolution. That makes as much sense as believing in a flat Earth. Science is limited to a tentative and often incorrect theory of how the universe operates. When evidence shows a theory false, it is discarded; but what will happen to those who chose not to believe in God because of the errors of science? It's not a religion, and you shouldn't treat it with the authority of truth. Sure, we can use science to inform us of how to build a bridge or put a man on the moon, but when it comes to matters of eternal significance, it is utterly insufficient. The fact that people take evolution as gospel only damages the credibility of those scientists who are actually doing good work in their fields, and understand the limitations of their discipline.
I think the real question is not a matter of what if, but rather when, evolution is shown to be incorrect, will you still believe in it? If so, you're more a religious fanatic than a rational person. The fact that someone doesn't believe in evolution might just be an indication they're thinking in bigger terms than you.
What, Lazarus being brought back to life after being dead for days doesn't count? Or do you just discredit sources with which you disagree?
When you think about, if your rationale for source inclusion is limited to only those sources with which you agree, you'll never, ever, see evidence of a miracle. It would seem there's some circular logic going on in atheist circles - an atheist will argue that no credible source has verified a miracle; yet any source which mentions miracles is immediately disqualified from discussion as being "religious" in nature. So, from the atheist's internal perspective, their arguments seem rational; yet from the perspective of an outside observer, it seems they are just as dogmatic as their religious brethren who believe without understanding why. Both groups are willing to exclude from consideration sources which originate from those who hold viewpoints with which they disagree. It protects the fragile positions they hold from further scrutiny, and protects them from becoming enlightened.
The interesting thing about Catholicism is that we've found that science often confirms our faith. I find it odd that while I (a Catholic) have little problem accepting scientific theories, most atheists have a very difficult time understanding and accepting scripture. It would seem their minds are not large enough to accommodate multiple, orthogonal explanations for events (scientific, philosophical, political, etc...) Is an atheist able to rationalize apparently contradictory explanations (for example, by understanding the witnesses see from different perspectives)? Is an atheist able to comprehend that sometimes, explanations just don't exist, or are sometimes beyond the ability of human reason?
I have not closed my mind to things which initially challenged my faith. And for a while there was a time when I struggled with things like evolution, etc... But I did not give up; rather, I gained a larger perspective, a greater understanding of the world than I would have gained had I just decided to believe either evolution or creationism, and arbitrarily dismiss the other side. I would like to see atheists take the same approach to religion; just because you personally have not seen evidence of God doesn't mean that others have not. Even I didn't dismiss the most ardent proponents of evolution as fools; rather, I came to realize the reason why they espoused such theories was because their focus was too small; it wasn't that evolution wasn't true, per se, but that it was only a very small piece of a much larger puzzle. It was finding the ways in which my faith and science fit together that provided a much greater understanding of the universe. I didn't need to argue either creationism or evolution, because the debate was pointless.
But my heart goes out to atheists who cannot, or will not, understand the Universe from anything other than a scientific standpoint. Those who cannot confront ambiguity and contradiction will find themselves simply dismissing observations which do not fit into their preconceived notions of how the universe should be. And unfortunately, such a situation precludes any enlightenment or increase in understanding.