The first thing that came to mind when I saw this article was the TransmetaCrusoe processor. Which unfortunately never achieved much of any significant market penetration. Indeed, it seems that you really have to have something more than just an incredibly efficient chip in order to compete against the Intel - AMD behemoth.
Personally, I would love to see a chip that requires very low power make it into the mainstream market. I think it would great to have something like that for the miniITX form factor or something of that nature that hobbyists could tinker with and find fun applications for. The Transmeta, unfortunately, never realized that as far as I ever saw.
60 from 2008
That would be 1948. And your point is?
Someone who is 60 now was 5 years old when rationing ended in this country. They would've gone to university in 1966
The generation time for humans is generally taken to be 25 years. If they are the generation prior to you, then you should have entered university in 1991. Where were you in 1991? Being as the article in question is regarding people born after 1980, you would have been at best 10 years old in 1991. Did you really enter university at age 10?
Or were you just starting to develop misplaced rage towards the earlier generations?
This shows a profound ignorance of the subject at hand - the cost of going to university has been constantly increasing for as long as I can remember.
Your reply shows profound ignorance towards what I said. I never said anything about what you may or may not pay for school. My statement was only in regards to academic freedom of choice.
a generation that had it a fuck load easier than I did
OK, you seem to be telling us you are in the UK, and you are under 30. That means that the previous generation for you would be people who are approximately 50-60, yes?
Being as that would be the first post-war generation, I'm not sure how you could get off saying they had it "a fuck load easier" than you in the UK. In case you have already forgotten, the UK had the fuck pretty well bombed out of it in WWII. The first post-war generation had to take part in the rebuilding of the country, and playing catch-up with the nations that were fortunate enough to not have lost the bulk of their infrastructure to the luftwaffe.
Your generation, on the other hand, has now that new infrastructure available. You are able to go to school and pursue whatever study you want. Nobody expects you to help bring your country around, because its doing pretty damned well now.
Yep, that certainly equates to the previous generation having had it a fuck load easier, doesn't it?
Seeing that six botnets propagate most of the spam really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who is familiar with spamhaus. After all, why would the spammers want to reinvent the wheel and produce new botnets when each botnet is itself constantly gaining new zombie PCs?
Really, this is nowhere near as useful as the spam distribution data that is available through spamhaus, telling us who is behind the bulk of the spam, and what geographic parts of the world they are associated with. The botnet building and controlling seems to be the easy part of the spammers' game now, and we can all thank our neighbors and their new un-patched boxes on 24/7 DSL / cable connections for that.
A few collaborators - or really, parters-in-crime - that we should look into:
The owners of the domains he was spamming for
The ISPs that provided connectivity or hosting for those domains
The registrars that sold the domains
The people who provided DNS for the domains
There's a good chance that those are different groups of people, and an even better chance that those groups were getting kick-backs from the spammer. Its rare that the registrars and ISPs that keep spamming operations afloat are truly ignorant of whats going on. Indeed, they are usually taking kick-backs as hush money.
Of course, there's a good chance at least some - if not all - of those groups are outside US territory (and jurisdiction) and will hence never see anything from us. But we can keep hoping for some cooperation on it.
Is it that hard to discuss something like this without insulting your opponent?
I can vouch (from myownexperience with AK Marc) that this is not the first time insults have been a fundamental portion of his "argument".
The sad part of it is this time I agree with what he's trying to say. I just don't agree with how he's trying to say it.
The 2nd amendment is meant to ensure that MILITIAS continue to exist by giving INDIVIDUALS the right to keep weapons
There are still problems with that. After all, what is a militia, anyways? Consider who raised armies in the 18th century... Kings and Queens raised armies. Could militia have been chosen as a term for the second amendment simply to distinguish a force built by the US from a force built by a royal family?
And then for that matter, why is it necessary for individuals to have arms to raise a militia? Sure it made sense when the population density of the united states was much lower, but is there really an advantage to raising a militia when the arms are decentralized?
And for that matter, what does "keep and bear arms" actually mean? Does that mean that people should bring their guns to church, school, city hall, and the shopping mall? If the sentence began with concerns about the security of a free state, how is the security of a free state aided by having more weapons around in public?
I don't think either of us really know what the 2nd amendment really means.
Sorry, but being wrong is not an impeachable offense, much less treason.
I think many people would say that what Bush did went beyond being wrong, and straight into lying. And that is something that presidents have been impeached for.
The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment
I think that all depends on how you interpret the Second Amendment. Frankly, I think its time for a rewrite of that amendment in its entirety, considering how strangely worded it is. I am not an English teacher, but frankly I find that sentence to be grammatically appalling. By the time you reach the end of it, it is no longer clear what was supposed to be said about the beginning of the same sentence.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Exactly what people shall not have their right infringed upon? Who is supposed to make up this militia? And what exactly do the two parts of that sentence have to do with each other?
Someone already submitted this article under a different headline. It was rejected. Apparently we care about it now, though I'm not sure why. Even linked to the same article, and sent in by the same person, with a different description.
I guess now I know what to do if the stories I submit don't make it...
To get an idea of recent R&D spending, see this graph.
While amounts have flattened out recently, the levels are much higher than during the 1990.
The graph is useful, though I would like to point out that it doesn't really paint the full picture, even though it is inflation corrected and showing all the numbers in 2007 dollars.
However, it is neglecting the increased costs of operation beyond inflation. Just one thing missing is the increased costs of energy in 2007 and 2008. High-energy physics requires, well, a lot of energy. And if energy costs go up, then the cost of running experiments at Fermilab goes up too.
The big Federal funds go to NIH (~$30 billion), NSF (~$6 billion), NASA science ($~5.5 billion)
NIH funds a lot of research, and a lot of researchers. And the grant money that they distribute has to pay for increasingly expensive work. Don't forget that many researchers also need to use their grant money to pay for their lab energy expenses, as well. I know this first hand by working in an NIH-funded lab.
And with the NIH funding relatively constant over the past few years, with actual costs continuing to rise, NIH-funded labs are finding themselves in a more difficult situation than before.
I can't help but wonder if he chose to go into politics after the recent Fermilab budget cuts. Considering the way that the current US congress has butchered science spending (at least relative to operating costs), it would be no surprise if he decided he had to fight the machine from within.
Politicians make their living off of the same vapourware every election-- and for some inexplicable reason, the masses keep buying into it. How about a short list?
1. Balanced Budget
2. Peace in our time
Actually, I would say that at least one candidate doesn't seem to care about those two. He's been supporting the current economic agenda, and has said we may be in Iraq for another 100 years.
For better or for worse (I'd say the latter), the list of political vaporware seems to have been reduced this year.
I would say that most, if not all, of the rest of the industrialized world would argue that we could have a better educational system in this country, and still balance our budget. How many countries with better public education than the US have budgets that are as severely out of whack as ours? How many G8 countries have had to continually raise their debt ceilings, and borrow more money every year, throwing their budgets further into the red?
Tell that to the 1-2 MILLION people annually in the U.S. who use guns for defensive purposes
I would love to know where that number comes from. I could certainly believe that 1-2 million people in the US carry guns for defensive purposes. But I would be shocked to see evidence supporting that 1-2 million actually used their guns defensively.
Carrying a gun and using a gun are two very, very, different things. Just because you have it doesn't mean that you are inherently safer because of it.
stealing the food from the mouths of poor SSH client developers, naughty naughty
I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who is making money as an SSH developer. It comes (at least partially) from the OpenBSD project, which is non-profit. And many of the ssh clients and servers that are out there for windows (putty and cygwin, to name one for each) are free anyways.
So I'm not sure that there is really any food to steal. These guys make their money elsewhere, from what I can tell.
Hence, I think we need to look elsewhere for the reason why Microsoft doesn't include even basic ssh client functionality in their operating systems. I vote for laziness myself...
If the vending machine eats your money, you can always consume the item dispensed, so technically the worst case scenario is a break-even.
Too bad I've already commented in this one, so I can't dole out a mod point - or I'd give you +1 funny.
Though the smart-assed side of me (really most of me) will point out that generally if a vending machine "eats your money" it means you get nothing. No refund, no credit, no food. But that is still generally a more favorable scenario (from the consumer standpoint) than most anything that goes down in Vegas.
Although realizing that this is a hack for a vending machine leads me to wonder -
what the hell do you buy for $100 in a vending machine?
Granted, I've never bothered going to Vegas, so maybe I'm missing something.
Do you really want to be the one to test that with your own $100 bills?:D
Actually, if you RTFA, you'll see that the "infinite $100 bill trick" works by hitting a sequence, and then asking for your $100 bill back. So presuming one of the buttons in the sequence isn't the "play this bet" button, you're not really risking anything. You either get your $100 back and have zero credit on the machine, or you get your $100 bill back and have $100 credit on the machine.
Though I certainly don't have the patience to run around a casino with a $100 bill and try different sequences to try to trip that feature...
Slashdot Mirror
The first thing that came to mind when I saw this article was the Transmeta Crusoe processor. Which unfortunately never achieved much of any significant market penetration. Indeed, it seems that you really have to have something more than just an incredibly efficient chip in order to compete against the Intel - AMD behemoth.
Personally, I would love to see a chip that requires very low power make it into the mainstream market. I think it would great to have something like that for the miniITX form factor or something of that nature that hobbyists could tinker with and find fun applications for. The Transmeta, unfortunately, never realized that as far as I ever saw.
Since the poster is essentially complaining about older generations, and really demonstrating his own inflated sense of entitlement...
It would seem that he is proving, rather than disproving, the point of the article.
That would be 1948. And your point is?
Someone who is 60 now was 5 years old when rationing ended in this country. They would've gone to university in 1966
The generation time for humans is generally taken to be 25 years. If they are the generation prior to you, then you should have entered university in 1991. Where were you in 1991? Being as the article in question is regarding people born after 1980, you would have been at best 10 years old in 1991. Did you really enter university at age 10?
Or were you just starting to develop misplaced rage towards the earlier generations?
This shows a profound ignorance of the subject at hand - the cost of going to university has been constantly increasing for as long as I can remember.
Your reply shows profound ignorance towards what I said. I never said anything about what you may or may not pay for school. My statement was only in regards to academic freedom of choice.
OK, you seem to be telling us you are in the UK, and you are under 30. That means that the previous generation for you would be people who are approximately 50-60, yes?
Being as that would be the first post-war generation, I'm not sure how you could get off saying they had it "a fuck load easier" than you in the UK. In case you have already forgotten, the UK had the fuck pretty well bombed out of it in WWII. The first post-war generation had to take part in the rebuilding of the country, and playing catch-up with the nations that were fortunate enough to not have lost the bulk of their infrastructure to the luftwaffe.
Your generation, on the other hand, has now that new infrastructure available. You are able to go to school and pursue whatever study you want. Nobody expects you to help bring your country around, because its doing pretty damned well now.
Yep, that certainly equates to the previous generation having had it a fuck load easier, doesn't it?
Seeing that six botnets propagate most of the spam really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who is familiar with spamhaus. After all, why would the spammers want to reinvent the wheel and produce new botnets when each botnet is itself constantly gaining new zombie PCs?
Really, this is nowhere near as useful as the spam distribution data that is available through spamhaus, telling us who is behind the bulk of the spam, and what geographic parts of the world they are associated with. The botnet building and controlling seems to be the easy part of the spammers' game now, and we can all thank our neighbors and their new un-patched boxes on 24/7 DSL / cable connections for that.
- The owners of the domains he was spamming for
- The ISPs that provided connectivity or hosting for those domains
- The registrars that sold the domains
- The people who provided DNS for the domains
There's a good chance that those are different groups of people, and an even better chance that those groups were getting kick-backs from the spammer. Its rare that the registrars and ISPs that keep spamming operations afloat are truly ignorant of whats going on. Indeed, they are usually taking kick-backs as hush money.Of course, there's a good chance at least some - if not all - of those groups are outside US territory (and jurisdiction) and will hence never see anything from us. But we can keep hoping for some cooperation on it.
I can vouch (from my own experience with AK Marc) that this is not the first time insults have been a fundamental portion of his "argument".
The sad part of it is this time I agree with what he's trying to say. I just don't agree with how he's trying to say it.
There are still problems with that. After all, what is a militia, anyways? Consider who raised armies in the 18th century... Kings and Queens raised armies. Could militia have been chosen as a term for the second amendment simply to distinguish a force built by the US from a force built by a royal family?
And then for that matter, why is it necessary for individuals to have arms to raise a militia? Sure it made sense when the population density of the united states was much lower, but is there really an advantage to raising a militia when the arms are decentralized?
And for that matter, what does "keep and bear arms" actually mean? Does that mean that people should bring their guns to church, school, city hall, and the shopping mall? If the sentence began with concerns about the security of a free state, how is the security of a free state aided by having more weapons around in public?
I don't think either of us really know what the 2nd amendment really means.
I think many people would say that what Bush did went beyond being wrong, and straight into lying. And that is something that presidents have been impeached for.
I think that all depends on how you interpret the Second Amendment. Frankly, I think its time for a rewrite of that amendment in its entirety, considering how strangely worded it is. I am not an English teacher, but frankly I find that sentence to be grammatically appalling. By the time you reach the end of it, it is no longer clear what was supposed to be said about the beginning of the same sentence.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Exactly what people shall not have their right infringed upon? Who is supposed to make up this militia? And what exactly do the two parts of that sentence have to do with each other?
That someone with a D after their name grows a package and stands up for something. If only it had happened several years prior as well...
I think you probably lose another geek point for bad syntax on that one. You likely wanted
"Natalie Portman" + Linux
Instead. We'll take your card at the door...
Poster deserves props for the mathematical correction on the day devoted to a mathematical constant.
Good luck ever doing much in base-pi, though...
Someone already submitted this article under a different headline. It was rejected. Apparently we care about it now, though I'm not sure why. Even linked to the same article, and sent in by the same person, with a different description.
I guess now I know what to do if the stories I submit don't make it...
While amounts have flattened out recently, the levels are much higher than during the 1990.
The graph is useful, though I would like to point out that it doesn't really paint the full picture, even though it is inflation corrected and showing all the numbers in 2007 dollars.
However, it is neglecting the increased costs of operation beyond inflation. Just one thing missing is the increased costs of energy in 2007 and 2008. High-energy physics requires, well, a lot of energy. And if energy costs go up, then the cost of running experiments at Fermilab goes up too.
The big Federal funds go to NIH (~$30 billion), NSF (~$6 billion), NASA science ($~5.5 billion)
NIH funds a lot of research, and a lot of researchers. And the grant money that they distribute has to pay for increasingly expensive work. Don't forget that many researchers also need to use their grant money to pay for their lab energy expenses, as well. I know this first hand by working in an NIH-funded lab.
And with the NIH funding relatively constant over the past few years, with actual costs continuing to rise, NIH-funded labs are finding themselves in a more difficult situation than before.
I can't help but wonder if he chose to go into politics after the recent Fermilab budget cuts. Considering the way that the current US congress has butchered science spending (at least relative to operating costs), it would be no surprise if he decided he had to fight the machine from within.
1. Balanced Budget
2. Peace in our time
Actually, I would say that at least one candidate doesn't seem to care about those two. He's been supporting the current economic agenda, and has said we may be in Iraq for another 100 years.
For better or for worse (I'd say the latter), the list of political vaporware seems to have been reduced this year.
I would say that most, if not all, of the rest of the industrialized world would argue that we could have a better educational system in this country, and still balance our budget. How many countries with better public education than the US have budgets that are as severely out of whack as ours? How many G8 countries have had to continually raise their debt ceilings, and borrow more money every year, throwing their budgets further into the red?
I would love to know where that number comes from. I could certainly believe that 1-2 million people in the US carry guns for defensive purposes. But I would be shocked to see evidence supporting that 1-2 million actually used their guns defensively.
Carrying a gun and using a gun are two very, very, different things. Just because you have it doesn't mean that you are inherently safer because of it.
If they were willing to tag the only comment on a story in "idle" as "troll".
I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who is making money as an SSH developer. It comes (at least partially) from the OpenBSD project, which is non-profit. And many of the ssh clients and servers that are out there for windows (putty and cygwin, to name one for each) are free anyways.
So I'm not sure that there is really any food to steal. These guys make their money elsewhere, from what I can tell.
Hence, I think we need to look elsewhere for the reason why Microsoft doesn't include even basic ssh client functionality in their operating systems. I vote for laziness myself...
Too bad I've already commented in this one, so I can't dole out a mod point - or I'd give you +1 funny.
Though the smart-assed side of me (really most of me) will point out that generally if a vending machine "eats your money" it means you get nothing. No refund, no credit, no food. But that is still generally a more favorable scenario (from the consumer standpoint) than most anything that goes down in Vegas.
Although realizing that this is a hack for a vending machine leads me to wonder -
what the hell do you buy for $100 in a vending machine?
Granted, I've never bothered going to Vegas, so maybe I'm missing something.
Actually, if you RTFA, you'll see that the "infinite $100 bill trick" works by hitting a sequence, and then asking for your $100 bill back. So presuming one of the buttons in the sequence isn't the "play this bet" button, you're not really risking anything. You either get your $100 back and have zero credit on the machine, or you get your $100 bill back and have $100 credit on the machine.
Though I certainly don't have the patience to run around a casino with a $100 bill and try different sequences to try to trip that feature...
We could call it "Code of Summer" - perhaps to see which open source project made the most progress over the summer with their SoC help?