Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree. It's clumsy, no doubt, but I'm not sure it's actually wrong. Consider an alternative way of saying this: "Users have seen speeds as fast as 100k/sec on a broadband internet connection." That interpretation of the sentence would use the word "sighted," rather than "cited."
First of all, HanzoSan is a troll, don't pay him too much mind. He's been on my enemies list for months.
Second, the one grain of truth I would pick out from what he said is that one has to ask the following: is it the creation of the child pornography that harms the child, or the subsequent distribution? I think most of us would agree that it is the former. The latter may cause some harm (just as people who acted in porn in their adult youth find it is hard to be taken seriously in society), but it's really mainly just the creation of child porn that we need to target, I think.
Since p2p distribution of child porn does not allow for compensation of the original pornographer/child rapist, p2p distribution is not going to encourage the creation of more child porn. Make no mistake, I think that the viewing of child pornography is very bad, and such people should be punished, but I'd rather have a truly anonymous and secret p2p system than try to make it just a little bit harder for some sicko to view child pornography that has already been filmed (and hence, almost all of the damage has already been done). You may disagree, and that's a reasonable position, but recognize that freenet is not raping children; at worst, it is making it a little easier for others to watch people rape children.
Re:But his biography says his b-day is the 18th
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
You stil have to register with Selective Service, however, and the rules for a future draft are clearly spelled out. The three major ways any future draft would differ from the Vietnam era are:
College deferrment is only good to the end of the current semester, instead of indefinately
Marriage is no longer a way out, unless joining the military would push your wife (SS is still male only) into poverty, and she has no marketable skills whatsoever.
Finally, the ranking based on age has been changed. During Vietnam, 18-year-olds were last in line to be drafted, and 25-year-olds were first. Now, 20-year-olds are first, then 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19, 18. So, after you hit 20, your likelyhood of being drafted goes down each year, instead of up.
I can't speak for the others, but my grandmother's favorite strip is the Family Circus. The SF Chronicle runs a poll every so often on which strip should be cut to make room for a new one, and Family Circus never ends up near the bottom. I think the fact is, we simply are not its target demographic, any more than senior citizens are the target demographic of, say Dilbert.
Re:But his biography says his b-day is the 18th
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, exactly. Now they only let you defer until the end of your current semester.
If you already suspect that technology is moving faster in other places then you will notice stories that confirm your belief, and discount stories that dis-confirm your belief.
I'd go even further than this, and say that the stories reported in the media will confirm this. Assuming you read mainly American news, they'll usually report when a product will first be available, and then when it will be available in the US. If the two are the same, they won't bother mentioning it. So, they might say "this will be released in Japan next year, and in the US two years later," or "this will be released next year." In the latter case, it might not come to Japan for several years, but the American news only cares about the American release.
Yeah, but you don't carry your inkjet around with you. They don't sell inkjet cartiges in airports. "Refill anywhere" is a pretty poor marketing point for inkjets. It's much more important for laptops, though.
That's a bad analogy, I think, because Microsoft exploits its current monopoly position to prevent people from moving away from Windows. A more reasonable question would be whether Windows was better than Mac Classic, and that's a more debatable point. The fact that Windows ran on commodity hardware did give it the edge, IMHO.
Anyway, in this case, there should be no reason for any company to try to supress anyone else's approach. We'll just buy what works best, and the companies will copy the most successful designs.
Yes, the American IT sector may be finished. I doubt it, but I'll grant that it's a possibility. I think it's more likely that we simply overinvested in IT, and that after this rather dramatic shakeout, the coders that are left will make decent salaries.
This is not the first time an economic sector has been hit hard. Factory work went overseas earlier this century. Farm work went overseas last century. The shifting of a single industry does not necessarily spell doom for the economy.
Bull! Money could not be moved around globaly in 1910 as today and there was no internet or satelites or... well you get the picture.
Bull yourself! It's dry reading, but if you have a look at historical figures for trade as a portion of GDP, you'll see a peak in the early 1900's. There was a sharp drop after WWI, a period of stagnancy, and then recovery from the end of WWII to the present day. However, most countries have still not yet reached their 1910 peak.
Transportation of physical goods is still done much the same way it always has been: ships. Airplanes help somewhat, but the majority of international trade uses no technology more sophisticated than was invented during the 19th century.
As for Rome not lasting forever, Rome never understood how to run an empire. Rome was always just a city state that had somehow ended up ruling the entire Mediterranian. Today, most industrialized countries with capitalist economies practice convergence. They may suffer setbacks (such a WWII, which wiped out most of Europe), but once the temporary stumbling blocks have been overcome, the economies grow more quickly, converging towards the GDP per capita of the richest nation. Indeed, there seems to be a "hump" of sorts, where every country on the rich side of the hump converges, while most countries on the poor side of the hump stagnate. Every once in a while, a country such as Japan will make it over the hump, and from that point on will converge along with everyone else. At the worst, the USA would simply lose its lead, and we'd start converging towards, say, Australia.
Jesus, you'd think people had never lived through a recession before. This shit happens. This recession is no more likely to be eternal than the Dot Com boom was. Of course salaries are falling from their formerly inflated rate. Then, once they've fallen sufficiently, companies will start moving jobs back to the US, and salaries will rise again.
Christ, if you think this is bad, thank God that we weren't alive during the Great Depression. That didn't sink us, and this won't either. Also, for those who argue that this time it's different because of globalization: the world was more globalized in 1910 than it is now, because of European colonialism.
Could it handle the destructible and climbable walls, though? Also, I'm not sure it'd scale to quite that many troops. The Total War series also has an engine with most of the right components to do a Helm's Deep simulation, but as far as I know, it still would be unable to handle troops on the walls, or ladders for climbing the walls.
10 years? GM is saying they'll be ready for mass production for model year '10, which is only a bit more than 6 years away. 10 years seems more like an outside figure to me.
I believe it was just buried underground, like helium or natural gas. I wish I could find the damn article. I think it was on CNN, and I know it was sometime during my spring semester last year, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe the author of the article was mistaken and it was retracted? I don't know, this is very weird.
Actually, I read an article about a year ago about how massive amounts of hydrogen were found along the Canada/US border. I'm not sure how long it would last if we were powering all of our cars with hydrogen, but clearly not ALL hydrogen has to be produced by splitting water molecules.
Bingo. GM is very into fuel cell cars. Slashdot did a story a couple years back when they first launched their effort. I know there was a better article about it here on Slashdot, but I can't seem to find it. A couple details I remember: they're spending $10 billion on it, and are redesigning automobiles from the ground up, now that they're not bound by the restrictions of gasoline engines. Each wheel will have its own motor, and the bodies will be modular, so one can buy a new body for the car and mount it on one's existing base (which contains the fuel tank, engine, motors, and wheels). GM hopes to roll it out in 2010, and as you can see here, they're still making good progress.
Is there any difference between grants for games companies than grants for films, the arts, museums, neighbourhood community projects, etc...
Probably not. That's why I'm against it. Here in the US, we get government sponsored art like "piss christ," a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or "lighft," a one word poem whose content is the same as its title. Even another goddamn Madden game would be better than the kind of crap we'd be getting if the government gave handouts to game programmers.
He's not trying to prove something in a court of law here, he's just trying to keep from getting blamed by his superiors. For such a purpose, email is sufficient.
Bingo. I was about to post a similar response, but you said it for me. They'll give you a card with, say, a 10 digit number, and you'll enter it into the login page in order to get access. MUCH simpler than fiddling with your settings.
If you're going to make a hostile takeover, you have to declare your intent with the SEC. So it's definately not IBM (or any other company looking to acquire SCO).
People keep on recommending this, and it's really getting on my nerves. Yes, IBM could buy SCO. Yes, it might have a lower expected cost than fighting the suit in court (expected cost = legal costs + (cost of losing * probability of losing)). But, it would set a bad precedent. By rewarding those who bring a groundless lawsuit against them, they encourage others to do the same.
My mother is a lawyer, and worked for PacBell for a number of years (back when it was PacBell, we're talking early 80's here). One of the things she has told me is that it almost certainly would have been cheaper for PacBell to settle every single lawsuit broght against them, and fire 9/10ths of their legal staff. However, if they did that, then everyone would start suing them because they'd be an easy source of money. So, settling a lawsuit out of court (or buying the company in question) can have large hidden costs above and beyond the actual amount that you pay.
As for your three other reasons why IBM should buy SCO, I'll examine them in turn. Reason 1, support services, would be redundant. SCO's total revenue is too small to be worthwhile to IBM. The costs of integrating the company into IBM would exceed any future profits it might bring in. As for items 2 and 3, intellectual properties, IBM could pick those up for almost nothing in a year when SCO has to file for Chapter 7 liquidation:)
Oh, one last point. The cost of a hostile takeover is not simply equivalent to its market cap. You need voting control of the company, which means you have to be the largest shareholder by a decent margin to forestall any proxy fights (obviously, you never need more than 50.01% of the stock). Also, as you buy up shares, the price will rise. You're dramatically increasing the demand for the shares, so the laws of supply and demand will push prices up. So, to know the real cost of acquiring SCO, we'd need to know a lot more about who the major shareholders are, how much they own, and how willing they would be to sell their shares to IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree. It's clumsy, no doubt, but I'm not sure it's actually wrong. Consider an alternative way of saying this: "Users have seen speeds as fast as 100k/sec on a broadband internet connection." That interpretation of the sentence would use the word "sighted," rather than "cited."
Second, the one grain of truth I would pick out from what he said is that one has to ask the following: is it the creation of the child pornography that harms the child, or the subsequent distribution? I think most of us would agree that it is the former. The latter may cause some harm (just as people who acted in porn in their adult youth find it is hard to be taken seriously in society), but it's really mainly just the creation of child porn that we need to target, I think.
Since p2p distribution of child porn does not allow for compensation of the original pornographer/child rapist, p2p distribution is not going to encourage the creation of more child porn. Make no mistake, I think that the viewing of child pornography is very bad, and such people should be punished, but I'd rather have a truly anonymous and secret p2p system than try to make it just a little bit harder for some sicko to view child pornography that has already been filmed (and hence, almost all of the damage has already been done). You may disagree, and that's a reasonable position, but recognize that freenet is not raping children; at worst, it is making it a little easier for others to watch people rape children.
I can't speak for the others, but my grandmother's favorite strip is the Family Circus. The SF Chronicle runs a poll every so often on which strip should be cut to make room for a new one, and Family Circus never ends up near the bottom. I think the fact is, we simply are not its target demographic, any more than senior citizens are the target demographic of, say Dilbert.
Yes, exactly. Now they only let you defer until the end of your current semester.
I'd go even further than this, and say that the stories reported in the media will confirm this. Assuming you read mainly American news, they'll usually report when a product will first be available, and then when it will be available in the US. If the two are the same, they won't bother mentioning it. So, they might say "this will be released in Japan next year, and in the US two years later," or "this will be released next year." In the latter case, it might not come to Japan for several years, but the American news only cares about the American release.
Yeah, but you don't carry your inkjet around with you. They don't sell inkjet cartiges in airports. "Refill anywhere" is a pretty poor marketing point for inkjets. It's much more important for laptops, though.
Anyway, in this case, there should be no reason for any company to try to supress anyone else's approach. We'll just buy what works best, and the companies will copy the most successful designs.
The ones authored by "Mary Margaret Serpento" are clearly not haikus.
This is not the first time an economic sector has been hit hard. Factory work went overseas earlier this century. Farm work went overseas last century. The shifting of a single industry does not necessarily spell doom for the economy.
Bull yourself! It's dry reading, but if you have a look at historical figures for trade as a portion of GDP, you'll see a peak in the early 1900's. There was a sharp drop after WWI, a period of stagnancy, and then recovery from the end of WWII to the present day. However, most countries have still not yet reached their 1910 peak.
Transportation of physical goods is still done much the same way it always has been: ships. Airplanes help somewhat, but the majority of international trade uses no technology more sophisticated than was invented during the 19th century.
As for Rome not lasting forever, Rome never understood how to run an empire. Rome was always just a city state that had somehow ended up ruling the entire Mediterranian. Today, most industrialized countries with capitalist economies practice convergence. They may suffer setbacks (such a WWII, which wiped out most of Europe), but once the temporary stumbling blocks have been overcome, the economies grow more quickly, converging towards the GDP per capita of the richest nation. Indeed, there seems to be a "hump" of sorts, where every country on the rich side of the hump converges, while most countries on the poor side of the hump stagnate. Every once in a while, a country such as Japan will make it over the hump, and from that point on will converge along with everyone else. At the worst, the USA would simply lose its lead, and we'd start converging towards, say, Australia.
Christ, if you think this is bad, thank God that we weren't alive during the Great Depression. That didn't sink us, and this won't either. Also, for those who argue that this time it's different because of globalization: the world was more globalized in 1910 than it is now, because of European colonialism.
Could it handle the destructible and climbable walls, though? Also, I'm not sure it'd scale to quite that many troops. The Total War series also has an engine with most of the right components to do a Helm's Deep simulation, but as far as I know, it still would be unable to handle troops on the walls, or ladders for climbing the walls.
They're talking about Myth II, not Myst II (aka Riven).
Note that "Other" has also been rising, and rather dramatically I might add. Perhaps Microsoft's dominance of the browser market is slipping...
10 years? GM is saying they'll be ready for mass production for model year '10, which is only a bit more than 6 years away. 10 years seems more like an outside figure to me.
I believe it was just buried underground, like helium or natural gas. I wish I could find the damn article. I think it was on CNN, and I know it was sometime during my spring semester last year, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe the author of the article was mistaken and it was retracted? I don't know, this is very weird.
Actually, I read an article about a year ago about how massive amounts of hydrogen were found along the Canada/US border. I'm not sure how long it would last if we were powering all of our cars with hydrogen, but clearly not ALL hydrogen has to be produced by splitting water molecules.
This seems to be improving. I just found this article recently, and coincientally, it's about GM.
Bingo. GM is very into fuel cell cars. Slashdot did a story a couple years back when they first launched their effort. I know there was a better article about it here on Slashdot, but I can't seem to find it. A couple details I remember: they're spending $10 billion on it, and are redesigning automobiles from the ground up, now that they're not bound by the restrictions of gasoline engines. Each wheel will have its own motor, and the bodies will be modular, so one can buy a new body for the car and mount it on one's existing base (which contains the fuel tank, engine, motors, and wheels). GM hopes to roll it out in 2010, and as you can see here, they're still making good progress.
Probably not. That's why I'm against it. Here in the US, we get government sponsored art like "piss christ," a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or "lighft," a one word poem whose content is the same as its title. Even another goddamn Madden game would be better than the kind of crap we'd be getting if the government gave handouts to game programmers.
He's not trying to prove something in a court of law here, he's just trying to keep from getting blamed by his superiors. For such a purpose, email is sufficient.
Bingo. I was about to post a similar response, but you said it for me. They'll give you a card with, say, a 10 digit number, and you'll enter it into the login page in order to get access. MUCH simpler than fiddling with your settings.
If you're going to make a hostile takeover, you have to declare your intent with the SEC. So it's definately not IBM (or any other company looking to acquire SCO).
My mother is a lawyer, and worked for PacBell for a number of years (back when it was PacBell, we're talking early 80's here). One of the things she has told me is that it almost certainly would have been cheaper for PacBell to settle every single lawsuit broght against them, and fire 9/10ths of their legal staff. However, if they did that, then everyone would start suing them because they'd be an easy source of money. So, settling a lawsuit out of court (or buying the company in question) can have large hidden costs above and beyond the actual amount that you pay.
As for your three other reasons why IBM should buy SCO, I'll examine them in turn. Reason 1, support services, would be redundant. SCO's total revenue is too small to be worthwhile to IBM. The costs of integrating the company into IBM would exceed any future profits it might bring in. As for items 2 and 3, intellectual properties, IBM could pick those up for almost nothing in a year when SCO has to file for Chapter 7 liquidation :)
Oh, one last point. The cost of a hostile takeover is not simply equivalent to its market cap. You need voting control of the company, which means you have to be the largest shareholder by a decent margin to forestall any proxy fights (obviously, you never need more than 50.01% of the stock). Also, as you buy up shares, the price will rise. You're dramatically increasing the demand for the shares, so the laws of supply and demand will push prices up. So, to know the real cost of acquiring SCO, we'd need to know a lot more about who the major shareholders are, how much they own, and how willing they would be to sell their shares to IBM.