It matters in the sense that your current balance of trade is so weighted against you - that a drop in your imports threatens to bankrupt your country. Currently the people buying the United States debt are those foreigners that you care so little about. America gets more on the nose - and fewer people in the rest of the world will fund your lifestyle. Americans are heavily in debt to the rest of the world financially. Keep that in mind when you tell the rest of us how unimportant we are. And you aren't digging yourself out of that debt either - the situation gets worse day by day.
The post 9/11 situation could have been handled a lot differently. Remember the headline of "Le Monde?" on the 12th of September - "We Are All American". Think about that. Your government could have chosen to deal with these problems in a way that effectively addressed them AND retained the credibility of the United States. Most of the world was still on your side during and after Afghanistan. As it stands - the problems are now worse, America is more hated in the middle east and is untrusted by the people that have been its allies for the last hundred or so years. Tell me - is the adventure in Iraq really a solution to the problem that caused 9/11? Or has your President simply excacerbated the problem?
What is going on in the middle east at the moment is going to cause the sort of problems that will haunt the United States for perhaps the next century. There were a lot of ways to handle it - and the current Administration chose the worst. Your government rushed into a war that it didn't need to fight. 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians and over 1000 dead coalition soldiers don't seem to have accomplished a lot, other than perhaps push Iraq towards an eventual fundamentalist government which will be far more of a threat to the United States than the neutered dictator Saddam ever was.
Believe it or not it does matter what the rest of the world thinks of you. It matters economically, it matters politically and it matters militarily. The American push for globalization has made you one of the nations that is most depentant on the good will of foreigners. You've moved most of your factories out of the country and very little of what is made in the United States can't be purchased from elsewhere in the world. You need to buy from the world (because you have shifted so much of your production offshore) - but the world doesn't really need to buy from you.
and i fear it's tehran, here we come, and a draft, in 2005. because i don't know about you, but i don't trust those mullahs with nukes, and i know for certain the neocons, or even the dems, don't either.
Do you really think that after all of this, the rest of the world trusts the US with nukes?
This is the main problem - the US, which was basically trusted by most of the world to "do the right thing" is now seen as consistently doing "the wrong thing".
Now there isn't much that the "rest of the world" can do about it... but "Brand USA" is looking pretty busted right now. The US already imports far more than it exports. As the US gets more "on the nose" because of its unilateral foreign policy - people who buy US products around the world are going to shop elsewhere.
The US once was percieved as a "beacon of freedom" in the way that no other nation has been in history. Your current President has managed to flush that reputation down the toilet. It would take 20 years of great Presidents really making positive contributions to the world (as the US did for the most part last century) to undo the damage the current one has done. If the current one gets re-elected, I'm pretty sure that in four years time Americans abroad will be about as popular as white South Africans abroad during the 1980's.
The clones in "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" are the precursors to the Storm Troopers. As the Zahn novels were written prior to the release of the prequels - it is reasonable to assume that Zahn didn't know the origins of the Storm Troopers.
Interestingly - prior to the release of Attack of the Clones, someone over at TheForce.net found an article from the late 70's talking about the tech of Star Wars. It was one of those promotional dodads released by Lucasfilm. The scan showed the text stating that Storm Troopers were clones. The point they were making was that that if you looked really hard, the whole clone issue had been around since the release of Star Wars.
Lucas also mentions in the DVD commentaries that the Storm Troopers are clones. Specifically in the Ep II commentary, where he gets Jango to bump his head (which he said was a deliberate homage to the fact that Stormtroopers in the original trilogy were seen bumping into stuff in the background). He also mentiones them as clones in the original trilogy commentary (though I've only watched it once, so I couldn't give you the exact timing on it).
So Luke and Han's reaction was written prior to Zahn knowing the "real story". Just like the origins of the Death Star (Maw installation in EU books, Geonosians according to the Prequels) and a lot of other stuff was "broken" by the Prequels - so was a lot of the clone stuff from Zahn's books.
I'm guessing that whoever did the original approvals over at Lucasfilm for the Zahn books didn't run them by George himself. There would have been a lot of stuff that he could have nixed to keep everything consistent.
Anyway - if you want to take this to email. orin.thomas@gmail.com
Re:incorporate zahn's books
on
Star Wars TV Show
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
IIRC the explanation for the dark place on Dagobah was a cloned Jedi that had gone nuts. Given that the stormtroopers are themselves clones, it seemed kind of odd that Thrawn would need all that force damnpning gear to make his own set of clones - given that he already had lots of clones in his storm trooper legions. Perhaps something happened to the Kaminoans - though given the Empire's rather substantial supply of Stormtroopers up until Endor, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion anywhere in the books that the supply of clones suddenly dried up.
The clones thing is an area where it becomes difficult to reconcile the Zahn books with the prequels.
Although I agree that Mara somewhat developed (at least she dealt with her impulse to kill Luke), I didn't feel that Kaarde was much more than a two dimensional character. I'm also not sure about Joruus - he just kinda seemed nuts the whole time.
I disagree about the mini-series being a good idea. The X-Wing books might work that way - but I really felt that Dark Force Rising and The Last Command weren't nearly as strong as Heir to the Empire. All the cool stuff happens in the first book - the second and third never seem to catch up. The later Hand of Thrawn books are better - but I think that the person who writes the "most Star Warsy" books of that type is Stackpole. Shatterpoint - with Mace Windu - would make a good film as well.
But I'm amused that whenever a Star Wars thread pops up on Slashdot, someone responds "they should make the Zahn books". I think that most people tha tmake this comment really don't remember what was in the Zahn books other than that they enjoyed them when they came out in the early 1990's before the Prequels were announced.
Re:incorporate zahn's books
on
Star Wars TV Show
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I see this comment all the time. Tim Zahn's books would not make great movies. I really want you to think about these books for a moment.
What REALLY GREAT scenes are there in the books? The Katana fleet battle doesn't compare to any space battle in the Star Wars movies.
The great ending of the books - Luke versus Clone Luuke? That wouldn't make a really good bit of cinema either.
Face it - none of the characters really grow in the Zahn books. Luke is pretty much the same at the start as he is at the end. The same as Han and Leia. There are few grand scenes and few things that I read and thought "wow - I wish I could see that on the big screen". The whole Mara and Luke wandering through the forest scene - wow that would drag on for ever!
Also - in Zahn's books the clone wars were Jedis being cloned and going nuts rather than the pre-cursors to the Stormtroopers.
Zahn's books are good as books. They wouldn't work as movies. Although I wasn't a great fan of the Dark Empire stuff - that at least would work better as a series of movies or a TV series - the idea of Luke falling to the Dark Side and being redeemed by Leia is far more in line with what is in the movies in terms of being epic.
Having listened to the DVD commentaries for all currently released Star Wars films I have to ask - does anyone else think that the sound guy spends WAY too much time talking?
Lucas has all these cool little insights, but when the sound guy gets started (and boy can he get started) he's still going five minutes later. This isn't just in Phantom Menace and AoTC, but in all of them! I was hoping for some cool insight into some obscure aspect of the films and this guy is going on about how he got to hold the boom mike one day!
I wish they'd also varied the commentary cast a little. I think in every commentary of the original trilogy Carrie Fisher made some comment about how she worried about George Lucas thinking she was fat. Mark Hamill and Anthony Daniels would have made great additions to the commentary teams. A pity that they only used Fisher.
Actors generally speak other people's words, so we rarely have any reason to give their own words weight. Science Fiction writers generally pay the rent by using their own words to describe the future - at some level they are predicting where civilisation will be based on where it is now as a profession. The two are like chalk and cheese.
Stephen J Gould wrote something about this. He found examples in Biology Textbooks where a particular (and unusual) comparrison was made - I think it was to the Eohippus. The comparrison was false - no one would make it.
He found this unusual comparrison in the vast majority of texts - showing that even many writers were regurgitating earlier works - right back to 1912.
The point is that this is not just a problem in "cheap" textbooks - but can influence more expensive texts as well.
The problem with economics? Lack of accurate prediction. One thing we know of science for sure is that it makes accurate predictions - and that hypotheses that do not make accurate predictions are discarded.
Until economists are able to make the sort of startlingly accurate predictions that biologists, chemists and physicists make - they shouldn't describe themselves as scientists. The other thing to remember is that most physicists, chemists and other scientists have a huge body of knowledge and theory that they do agree on - it is the advanced stuff where there is disagreement. What you believe in economics tends to be more influenced by your personal politics and the school you went to.
My Sony Ericson P900 is a Cell Phone/PDA that fits into my hand and pocket fine. When closed, the flip can be used as a PDA keyboard. I was as skeptical as you, but after using this device for a few months, I'll never go back to a separate PDA.
The flash memory sticks can store enough MP3 data for me to have something to listen to on the train when I go to work for several days. As that's the only time I tend to listen to music, it suits me well.
If the government can not see any return on investment - and their motives aren't strictly financial - why does everyone on slashdot jump up and down and assume that corporations will suddently decide that space is such a great idea and go an colonize Mars? Corporations have been able to go into space for years - yet they haven't bothered to do so.
Re:Security comes through one's own worth
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1
[i]By the time I'm 35, I can guarantee you that I will be of value to the point where they won't want to fire me with my experience. At my current age I'm already about there, and I'm quite a ways away from 35. I know as long as I work hard and don't screw up, I'll be fine.[/i]
I can guarentee that you won't be. There are very very very few people in the world that are truly irreplaceable. Irreplaceable people have unique skills that no-one else in the world has. Does that describe you? I'm almost certain that it doesn't. I'm sure that a quick search of the resumes on Monster.com would show that there are many people who can do what you do and likely there are a few that can do your job even better. Some of those people might not even be in the USA. Perhaps there is an Indian or a Russian Ph.D that could do your job for a fraction of the cost. Are you absolutely positive that you are safe?
As you get older you will realize that you are not. But hey, if you want to believe that you are irreplacable, go ahead. Pride goeth before the fall and claiming that your job will always be secure is like daring God to piss on you.
Don't assume that your employer will always be around. Buyouts happen. Almost all companies eventually go bust or are bought out. Are you sure that under management your comfortable and secure position will be safe?
Unions at least are more likely to get you retraining and ensure that your entitlements are met than pursuing your former employer for years through the courts.
As for the experience issue - going through the job board forums should be enough to show you that a lot of people here the phrase "I think you have too much experience" when going for a job. Even if you are willing to take a pay cut just to stay in work, many organizations are cautious about employing someone that is overqualified for a position. No one says that it is rational - but if you have a look around in IT, once you hit that magic 35 years old you will be treated a lot differently. If you'd read some of the stories on/. over the years about highly qualified and experienced IT professionals being thrown on the scrapheap you as they approach your 40's you might be a little less certain about your continued employment prospects.
One of the reasons for the booms last century was that there was a sense that once you had a job, there was a fair chance of keeping it. Now, for example, having children is a risk - how can you responsibly care about the upbringing of a child when you can't be certain that you'll even be employed next month?
I wonder if you'll be peddling the same line in 15 years. Job insecurity below 35 is fine - but you can't build a stable civilisation when people of child bearing age don't settle down because they are unsure where the next paycheque is coming from.
Supply and Demand doesn't and will not ever "truly work" because it rests on a whole lot of unattainable assumptions.
Perhaps the interesting claim here is that there will be over a billion computers currently in use in the world (one computer for every seven or people). That is, assuming that 96% figure is correct.
Doesn't one billion PCs sound a little high considering that the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have access to a telephone?
The book "Showstopper" stuggests that DEC had fired most of Cuttler's team before MS approached him about working on NT. One of Cuttler's conditions on going to MS was that the team that had been fired from DEC got to work with him at MS.
I'm not sure that your allegations of theft are all that supportable either. Perhaps your sources are different - I'm relying on the book Showstopper which seemed to suggest that Cuttler was essentially "pushed" rather than "stealing stuff and jump ship" which your post seems to intimate.
If you were concerned enough about Wi-Fi security to buy this stuff, wouldn't you consider Wi-Fi enough of a security problem to ban it from your network environment? And what if this stuff doesn't come in the right color? Also - does anyone use IPSec on Wi-Fi networks? (given that WEP can be cracked with a large enough data capture)
Stuff that you'd get away with saying in the USA, you can get sued for in most other countries. US firms have picked up on this and are a lot more litigious about such things outside the US. So are American celebrities, reprint tabloid stuff outside the US at your peril. It might be safe to call a certain actor's sexuality into question in the US, but do it in Australia or the UK and you'll wind up in court. Neither country has a "right" to free speech (except for politicians protected by parliamentry privilige, who really don't want to share that privilige with their critics).
Funny thing about defamation law. You don't have to prove that you're reputation has been damaged. It is accepted that this is almost impossible to reliably prove (it isn't like Slashdot Karma). Hence the law assumes that, because you've gone to court over it, your reputation must have been damaged. Also plaintiffs do not have to pay defendant's legal bills in most countries, hence defamation is a good way for rich plaintiffs to get the little guy, because the little guy, even if what he said was true, will still have to pay sizable legal bills.
Mod this post up. Criminologists are notorious for using dissimilar methods to measure crime. Saying that country A has less crime than country B assumes that people are taking the measurement in the same way. 99% of the time they are not.
It is a much longer bow to draw to assume a more complex mail topology (Sendmail as an SMTP relay to an internal Exchange infrastructure) than it is to assume a native Sendmail infrastructure or a native Exchange infrastructure.
No, sendmail (Score:5, Informative) by marnanel (98063) on Monday May 24, @12:04PM (#9234290) (http://marnanel.org/)
7: They're using MS Exchange SMTP servers, which bog down incredibly under load, especially if you run any separate service such as spam processing. Nah, it's sendmail:
Slashdot Mirror
It matters in the sense that your current balance of trade is so weighted against you - that a drop in your imports threatens to bankrupt your country. Currently the people buying the United States debt are those foreigners that you care so little about. America gets more on the nose - and fewer people in the rest of the world will fund your lifestyle. Americans are heavily in debt to the rest of the world financially. Keep that in mind when you tell the rest of us how unimportant we are. And you aren't digging yourself out of that debt either - the situation gets worse day by day.
The post 9/11 situation could have been handled a lot differently. Remember the headline of "Le Monde?" on the 12th of September - "We Are All American". Think about that. Your government could have chosen to deal with these problems in a way that effectively addressed them AND retained the credibility of the United States. Most of the world was still on your side during and after Afghanistan. As it stands - the problems are now worse, America is more hated in the middle east and is untrusted by the people that have been its allies for the last hundred or so years. Tell me - is the adventure in Iraq really a solution to the problem that caused 9/11? Or has your President simply excacerbated the problem?
What is going on in the middle east at the moment is going to cause the sort of problems that will haunt the United States for perhaps the next century. There were a lot of ways to handle it - and the current Administration chose the worst. Your government rushed into a war that it didn't need to fight. 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians and over 1000 dead coalition soldiers don't seem to have accomplished a lot, other than perhaps push Iraq towards an eventual fundamentalist government which will be far more of a threat to the United States than the neutered dictator Saddam ever was.
Believe it or not it does matter what the rest of the world thinks of you. It matters economically, it matters politically and it matters militarily. The American push for globalization has made you one of the nations that is most depentant on the good will of foreigners. You've moved most of your factories out of the country and very little of what is made in the United States can't be purchased from elsewhere in the world. You need to buy from the world (because you have shifted so much of your production offshore) - but the world doesn't really need to buy from you.
and i fear it's tehran, here we come, and a draft, in 2005. because i don't know about you, but i don't trust those mullahs with nukes, and i know for certain the neocons, or even the dems, don't either.
... but "Brand USA" is looking pretty busted right now. The US already imports far more than it exports. As the US gets more "on the nose" because of its unilateral foreign policy - people who buy US products around the world are going to shop elsewhere.
Do you really think that after all of this, the rest of the world trusts the US with nukes?
This is the main problem - the US, which was basically trusted by most of the world to "do the right thing" is now seen as consistently doing "the wrong thing".
Now there isn't much that the "rest of the world" can do about it
The US once was percieved as a "beacon of freedom" in the way that no other nation has been in history. Your current President has managed to flush that reputation down the toilet. It would take 20 years of great Presidents really making positive contributions to the world (as the US did for the most part last century) to undo the damage the current one has done. If the current one gets re-elected, I'm pretty sure that in four years time Americans abroad will be about as popular as white South Africans abroad during the 1980's.
The clones in "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" are the precursors to the Storm Troopers. As the Zahn novels were written prior to the release of the prequels - it is reasonable to assume that Zahn didn't know the origins of the Storm Troopers.
Interestingly - prior to the release of Attack of the Clones, someone over at TheForce.net found an article from the late 70's talking about the tech of Star Wars. It was one of those promotional dodads released by Lucasfilm. The scan showed the text stating that Storm Troopers were clones. The point they were making was that that if you looked really hard, the whole clone issue had been around since the release of Star Wars.
Lucas also mentions in the DVD commentaries that the Storm Troopers are clones. Specifically in the Ep II commentary, where he gets Jango to bump his head (which he said was a deliberate homage to the fact that Stormtroopers in the original trilogy were seen bumping into stuff in the background). He also mentiones them as clones in the original trilogy commentary (though I've only watched it once, so I couldn't give you the exact timing on it).
So Luke and Han's reaction was written prior to Zahn knowing the "real story". Just like the origins of the Death Star (Maw installation in EU books, Geonosians according to the Prequels) and a lot of other stuff was "broken" by the Prequels - so was a lot of the clone stuff from Zahn's books.
I'm guessing that whoever did the original approvals over at Lucasfilm for the Zahn books didn't run them by George himself. There would have been a lot of stuff that he could have nixed to keep everything consistent.
Anyway - if you want to take this to email. orin.thomas@gmail.com
IIRC the explanation for the dark place on Dagobah was a cloned Jedi that had gone nuts. Given that the stormtroopers are themselves clones, it seemed kind of odd that Thrawn would need all that force damnpning gear to make his own set of clones - given that he already had lots of clones in his storm trooper legions. Perhaps something happened to the Kaminoans - though given the Empire's rather substantial supply of Stormtroopers up until Endor, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion anywhere in the books that the supply of clones suddenly dried up.
The clones thing is an area where it becomes difficult to reconcile the Zahn books with the prequels.
Although I agree that Mara somewhat developed (at least she dealt with her impulse to kill Luke), I didn't feel that Kaarde was much more than a two dimensional character. I'm also not sure about Joruus - he just kinda seemed nuts the whole time.
I disagree about the mini-series being a good idea. The X-Wing books might work that way - but I really felt that Dark Force Rising and The Last Command weren't nearly as strong as Heir to the Empire. All the cool stuff happens in the first book - the second and third never seem to catch up. The later Hand of Thrawn books are better - but I think that the person who writes the "most Star Warsy" books of that type is Stackpole. Shatterpoint - with Mace Windu - would make a good film as well.
But I'm amused that whenever a Star Wars thread pops up on Slashdot, someone responds "they should make the Zahn books". I think that most people tha tmake this comment really don't remember what was in the Zahn books other than that they enjoyed them when they came out in the early 1990's before the Prequels were announced.
I see this comment all the time. Tim Zahn's books would not make great movies. I really want you to think about these books for a moment.
What REALLY GREAT scenes are there in the books? The Katana fleet battle doesn't compare to any space battle in the Star Wars movies.
The great ending of the books - Luke versus Clone Luuke? That wouldn't make a really good bit of cinema either.
Face it - none of the characters really grow in the Zahn books. Luke is pretty much the same at the start as he is at the end. The same as Han and Leia. There are few grand scenes and few things that I read and thought "wow - I wish I could see that on the big screen". The whole Mara and Luke wandering through the forest scene - wow that would drag on for ever!
Also - in Zahn's books the clone wars were Jedis being cloned and going nuts rather than the pre-cursors to the Stormtroopers.
Zahn's books are good as books. They wouldn't work as movies. Although I wasn't a great fan of the Dark Empire stuff - that at least would work better as a series of movies or a TV series - the idea of Luke falling to the Dark Side and being redeemed by Leia is far more in line with what is in the movies in terms of being epic.
Having listened to the DVD commentaries for all currently released Star Wars films I have to ask - does anyone else think that the sound guy spends WAY too much time talking?
Lucas has all these cool little insights, but when the sound guy gets started (and boy can he get started) he's still going five minutes later. This isn't just in Phantom Menace and AoTC, but in all of them! I was hoping for some cool insight into some obscure aspect of the films and this guy is going on about how he got to hold the boom mike one day!
I wish they'd also varied the commentary cast a little. I think in every commentary of the original trilogy Carrie Fisher made some comment about how she worried about George Lucas thinking she was fat. Mark Hamill and Anthony Daniels would have made great additions to the commentary teams. A pity that they only used Fisher.
Actors generally speak other people's words, so we rarely have any reason to give their own words weight. Science Fiction writers generally pay the rent by using their own words to describe the future - at some level they are predicting where civilisation will be based on where it is now as a profession. The two are like chalk and cheese.
Stephen J Gould wrote something about this. He found examples in Biology Textbooks where a particular (and unusual) comparrison was made - I think it was to the Eohippus. The comparrison was false - no one would make it.
He found this unusual comparrison in the vast majority of texts - showing that even many writers were regurgitating earlier works - right back to 1912.
The point is that this is not just a problem in "cheap" textbooks - but can influence more expensive texts as well.
The problem with economics? Lack of accurate prediction. One thing we know of science for sure is that it makes accurate predictions - and that hypotheses that do not make accurate predictions are discarded.
Until economists are able to make the sort of startlingly accurate predictions that biologists, chemists and physicists make - they shouldn't describe themselves as scientists. The other thing to remember is that most physicists, chemists and other scientists have a huge body of knowledge and theory that they do agree on - it is the advanced stuff where there is disagreement. What you believe in economics tends to be more influenced by your personal politics and the school you went to.
My Sony Ericson P900 is a Cell Phone/PDA that fits into my hand and pocket fine. When closed, the flip can be used as a PDA keyboard. I was as skeptical as you, but after using this device for a few months, I'll never go back to a separate PDA.
The flash memory sticks can store enough MP3 data for me to have something to listen to on the train when I go to work for several days. As that's the only time I tend to listen to music, it suits me well.
This is something I don't get.
If the government can not see any return on investment - and their motives aren't strictly financial - why does everyone on slashdot jump up and down and assume that corporations will suddently decide that space is such a great idea and go an colonize Mars? Corporations have been able to go into space for years - yet they haven't bothered to do so.
[i]By the time I'm 35, I can guarantee you that I will be of value to the point where they won't want to fire me with my experience. At my current age I'm already about there, and I'm quite a ways away from 35. I know as long as I work hard and don't screw up, I'll be fine.[/i]
/. over the years about highly qualified and experienced IT professionals being thrown on the scrapheap you as they approach your 40's you might be a little less certain about your continued employment prospects.
I can guarentee that you won't be. There are very very very few people in the world that are truly irreplaceable. Irreplaceable people have unique skills that no-one else in the world has. Does that describe you? I'm almost certain that it doesn't. I'm sure that a quick search of the resumes on Monster.com would show that there are many people who can do what you do and likely there are a few that can do your job even better. Some of those people might not even be in the USA. Perhaps there is an Indian or a Russian Ph.D that could do your job for a fraction of the cost. Are you absolutely positive that you are safe?
As you get older you will realize that you are not. But hey, if you want to believe that you are irreplacable, go ahead. Pride goeth before the fall and claiming that your job will always be secure is like daring God to piss on you.
Don't assume that your employer will always be around. Buyouts happen. Almost all companies eventually go bust or are bought out. Are you sure that under management your comfortable and secure position will be safe?
Unions at least are more likely to get you retraining and ensure that your entitlements are met than pursuing your former employer for years through the courts.
As for the experience issue - going through the job board forums should be enough to show you that a lot of people here the phrase "I think you have too much experience" when going for a job. Even if you are willing to take a pay cut just to stay in work, many organizations are cautious about employing someone that is overqualified for a position. No one says that it is rational - but if you have a look around in IT, once you hit that magic 35 years old you will be treated a lot differently. If you'd read some of the stories on
One of the reasons for the booms last century was that there was a sense that once you had a job, there was a fair chance of keeping it. Now, for example, having children is a risk - how can you responsibly care about the upbringing of a child when you can't be certain that you'll even be employed next month?
I wonder if you'll be peddling the same line in 15 years. Job insecurity below 35 is fine - but you can't build a stable civilisation when people of child bearing age don't settle down because they are unsure where the next paycheque is coming from.
Supply and Demand doesn't and will not ever "truly work" because it rests on a whole lot of unattainable assumptions.
Perhaps the interesting claim here is that there will be over a billion computers currently in use in the world (one computer for every seven or people). That is, assuming that 96% figure is correct.
Doesn't one billion PCs sound a little high considering that the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have access to a telephone?
This would be good for Australia. No longer "down under" ... finally "on top".
The book "Showstopper" stuggests that DEC had fired most of Cuttler's team before MS approached him about working on NT. One of Cuttler's conditions on going to MS was that the team that had been fired from DEC got to work with him at MS.
I'm not sure that your allegations of theft are all that supportable either. Perhaps your sources are different - I'm relying on the book Showstopper which seemed to suggest that Cuttler was essentially "pushed" rather than "stealing stuff and jump ship" which your post seems to intimate.
Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products, but P2P vendors are?
Both products, of course, can be used without breaking the law.
I tested this also. No problem. Gmail to Hotmail took the same time as my ISP to Hotmail.
When this story was sitting in the queue, didn't is just sound a bit "too good to be true" (from the conspiracy side of things)?
Finally - should we be getting a Gmail icon with all of these Gmail stories?
1. Make Slashdot Joke.
2. ?????
3. Get Gmail Invite!!!!
This is absolutely correct. You can even use the simple Internet Connection Firewall that is built into Windows XP
If you were concerned enough about Wi-Fi security to buy this stuff, wouldn't you consider Wi-Fi enough of a security problem to ban it from your network environment? And what if this stuff doesn't come in the right color? Also - does anyone use IPSec on Wi-Fi networks? (given that WEP can be cracked with a large enough data capture)
Stuff that you'd get away with saying in the USA, you can get sued for in most other countries. US firms have picked up on this and are a lot more litigious about such things outside the US. So are American celebrities, reprint tabloid stuff outside the US at your peril. It might be safe to call a certain actor's sexuality into question in the US, but do it in Australia or the UK and you'll wind up in court. Neither country has a "right" to free speech (except for politicians protected by parliamentry privilige, who really don't want to share that privilige with their critics).
Funny thing about defamation law. You don't have to prove that you're reputation has been damaged. It is accepted that this is almost impossible to reliably prove (it isn't like Slashdot Karma). Hence the law assumes that, because you've gone to court over it, your reputation must have been damaged. Also plaintiffs do not have to pay defendant's legal bills in most countries, hence defamation is a good way for rich plaintiffs to get the little guy, because the little guy, even if what he said was true, will still have to pay sizable legal bills.
Mod this post up. Criminologists are notorious for using dissimilar methods to measure crime. Saying that country A has less crime than country B assumes that people are taking the measurement in the same way. 99% of the time they are not.
This may be the case. It may not be.
It is a much longer bow to draw to assume a more complex mail topology (Sendmail as an SMTP relay to an internal Exchange infrastructure) than it is to assume a native Sendmail infrastructure or a native Exchange infrastructure.
To quote the post directly above you ...
No, sendmail (Score:5, Informative)
by marnanel (98063) on Monday May 24, @12:04PM (#9234290)
(http://marnanel.org/)
7: They're using MS Exchange SMTP servers, which bog down incredibly under load, especially if you run any separate service such as spam processing.
Nah, it's sendmail:
$ dig -t MX tu-bs.de
[...]
tu-bs.de. 172738 IN MX 10 rzcomm5.rz.tu-bs.de.
$ telnet rzcomm5.rz.tu-bs.de smtp
Trying 134.169.9.40...
Connected to rzcomm5.rz.tu-bs.de.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 rzcomm5.rz.tu-bs.de ESMTP Sendmail 8.11.1/8.11.1; Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00:51 +0200 (METDST)
Mod parent up. If more people knew about slipstreaming, there would be less problems as described in the article.