"many" of Willy's are based on prior work? Isn't it all of them except, awe, nuts, I can't remember the name. The last one, on the island, in which he knocks the other playrights of the time? Oh, yeah: Tempest.
Nothing original about the stories he wrote; it's the *telling* that he did soe well . . .
Let's put this simply: Netscape 3 doesn't suck *as bad* as later versions of netscape and IE. As I mentioned, I don't normally use it, nor opera; they're both too bloated. I use lynx for nearly everything. Once I reconfdigured for a light background and for . on a link to open it with another copy of lynx, I was set.
and "pentium head?" . . . This obsolete thing under my desk is the first pentium I've ever been around. And it doesn't seem able to keep up with my 486/50 laptop. I doubt it could match my powerbook 180, either, but since that hasn't been assembled for years . ..
\troll{ob ebay-dork: anyone want to buy the pieces:) }
ANd I won't get into your luxurious resources; those machines that come fully assembled, include keyboards and a crt output, cycle times under a microsecond, etc . ..
You're going to send me the extra memory and a faster processor to use the newer browser? And a patch to include the features removed from older broswers?
Netscape 4 or later is laughable on this machine. BUt even with enough memory and speed, I stick with netscape 3. It's much faster. It crashes less.
Furthermore, everything after netscape 3 and the last mosaic removes featrues I regularly use: auto-image loading by window (rather than all or nothing in a slow preferences setup), and the alt- sequence to go back pages.
I don't care about newer java and javascript. I have yet to see anyone do anything useful with either of these on a web page.
Even so, I'd rather see a slightly updated netscape 3 than the bloated successors. When mozilla runs on my machine I'll try it again. Until then, it's lynx with an occasional netscape3.
Yes, I am a professor of economics as well as a lawyer. But if you manage to construe this as legal advice, you probably need a shrink:)
>Of course I've never trusted central >federal authorities like the fed to make free market decisions, but >this fed-reserve is seasoned with the fear of inflation and the fear >of depressions, so I think they'll do OK - at least to the extent of >preventing major disasters.
Yes and no. Today the monetarists are pretty much in control of our monetary policy. To put their views in a nutshell,
1) the government can't achieve anything by mucking around with monetary policy, as people react to the policy and it is countered. 2) the government *can* screw up the economy with monetary policy--among other things, it can make fluctuations more violent. 3) inflation is bad 4) deflation is worse
These lead to
5) any activist policy (an attempt to fix or better the economy) will be defeated by choices of agents in the economyk
Therefore,
6) Have a well-known rule of monetary behavior.
Noting that
7) a growing economy with steady price levels needs more money to handle the additional transactions,
we get the basic monetarist rule:
8) Have the money supply grow at a fixed, well known rate. 9) The rate which avoids inflation and deflation is the average rate of growth of the economy.
They accept then that
10) You'll be high some years, and low others. But you get less fluctation and smaller shocks than any other policy.
There are variations, and disputes as to what the actual rate in 9) is, and whether or not it is changing. But this is will put you in the right range for most modern monetarists.
These guys *expected* the 82 recession. However, since
11) if inflation is expected, the expected level is the *starting* point
the only way to get rid of existing inflation and establish the rules of 8 and 9 is to accept the recession to establish the credibility of these rules. It's not that they wanted the recession, but believed that the longer it was postponed, the worse it would be (look at countrys that actually got hyperinflation).
While there's a couple of topics where monetarism has failed, most of its predictions came true--notably, Milton Friedman was considered a crank when he predicted the stagflation of the 70's--and then it happened.
We have essentially had an ongoing expansion for over 15 years. Yes, there was a minor recession late in the Bush administration, which barely met the definition. Overall, though, it's really the same expansion, and *neither* party is going to muck with it. They'll try to pressure Greenspan for short term gains, but both parties will keep with him as long as he's willing, and he'll be replaced with someone similar.
Hmm, I should clip those 11 points for next year's Money & Banking class.
To summarize the monetarist summary: You can't make it any better, so just avoid mucking it up.
hawk, as an economist today. Hmm, so should I sign it dr hawk?:)
But I never said that. I made no claim as to FreeBSD being better than OpenBSD.
However, for an individual developer, the operating system he already knows and is involved with is a better *choice* unless the existing advantages to the other operating system are compelling.
I had my 89 crown victoria tuned in 1990 when I moved from sea level to Vegas--the manual said it was due, and I'd just moved to a higher altitude. That was at 30,000. 30,000 miles later, I took it in again, as the manual said it was due. They charged me about $10 for looking at it, and gave it back, saying it had absolutely no need for a tuneup.
I've now gone almost 10 years and over 100,000 miles without a tuneup. But there's really nothing left to tuneup on these things--check and see if the spark plugs are fouled, replace any broken spark lines, and make sure the computer hasn't reset itself. My mileage is unchanged from back then, so I have no intention of taking it in any time soon . ..
It wasn't for a couple of years after they built this one that they started advertising about 100,000 between tuneups . . . and they probably don't need that, either . . .
There are *much* simpler explanations than conspiracy theory.
Basically, they need to make sure the damn thing works before selling it.
Remember the GM diesel? Basically a buick gas-350 hastily converted and put into production.
Or the Cadilac 4-6-8? A wonderful idea; 8 cylinders for power, but it could drop a couple out once cruising. Its failure poisoned the well for this technology, and we've gone 20 years without such a system.
Wait until you get it right. *then* put it on the road.
That's the *real* reason that linux isn't unix, you know--nethack isn't part of the default install on any distribution I know of . ..
I had the amulet in an older version, and without cheating. I slipped and hit the wrong key, wasting a turn instead of wising for a scroll of recall (or whatever it was) and died instead. These days I'm marrieed with kids, and don't have that kind of time any more . . .
> What would Democrit (first postulated the existence of atoms ins >ancient greece) say if he saw a scanning tunneling microscope in action?
Ah, yes, Democretes (or whatever the correct phrase is). WIth the simple demand, "Show me your atoms Democretes," Aristotle set physics back a thousand years. Hmm, 200years/word, not bad:)
And in the last civilization that had a fighting chance of doing the analytics for several hundred years (I'm guessing the next after Athens would be Arabs in the late first millenium), he set it back another 500 with his "natural rate of fall" instead of testing gravity.
The biting irony of the whole thing is that in the introduction to his Physics, he states the need to test with experiment . ..
I'm serious about this. The corporation exists as a means of production, turning the profits over to the shareholders either as dividends or higher share price.
What gives the directors or executives any moral authority to decide which charities should receive the money? Isn't it better for the shareholders to make this decision?
Quite frankly, unless the corporation is contributing to charities I want to support, my reaction as a stockholder is that my money is being wasted (and yes, I think the same applies to political spending by both corporations and unions).
Just hand over the proceeds to the shareholders, and let the shareholders use *their* views on the socially responsible place to spend the money.
Academic enowments pay out at about 5% a year. Thus $1M pays $50k/year. This is enough to support something more than one student at the expensive schools, but not enough to support two students. However, it supports in perpetuity; a $1M donation lets you have one student in school *forever*
If you can increase your price without losing all of your customers, you have market power. With barriers to entry, you can be a monopolist--microsoft certainly has enough market power to meet any normal economic meaning of monopolist.
A monopolist *will* charge different prices to different groups if it can keep them separate. It will also lower price and increase quantity if it feels heat that may lead to regulation, consumer boycott, or other activities that reduce its profit.
1) I don't know what they are off the cuff; see the article a day or two ago.
2) circular? The man doing the Trusted FreeBSD is *already* a major player in FreeBSD, making it the more natural choice for him. Code he knows inside and out, or code that's similar. Not a tough choice.
You're not seriously trying to suggest that microsoft's documentation is better, or more likely to exist, are you?
Once upon a time that was true. But it's been *several* years.
As just a single anecdote among many, a friend actually paid the one-problem support fee from ms while doing a school project. They just couldn't get one of the examples from the excel manual to work. The answer (that they paid for) turned out to be that microsoft had never implemented that feature, and that the example couldn't really be made to work.
I've found this to be roughly typical of attempts to use ms support and/or documentation.
The real tragedy is that 15-20 years ago microsoft's documentation was among the best available for microcomputers, if not the very best. (then again, they wrote good software then, too:)
Speaking as an economist rather than an attorney this time . ..
Save fro the short and sudden famines that we occasionally see, starvation is a distribution problem, not a production problem.
More than enough food is produced to feed the world. More than enough is produced in or sent to countries suffering from starvation to feed them. It just doesn't get to those who need it.
By far the leading cause is corruption or malice, by governments and rebel military forces. At a distant second is central planning, which history has never found to work for anything bigger than a small village or commune--certainly not anything big enough to call a city, let alone a country [more than half of the soviet potato crop used to rot every year after being harvested do to failures of central planners].
If you want to fight starvation, gathering food isn't the way to do it. Put an infinite supply of ofod in those countries, and you will make at most a negligible difference in the number of folks starvign. Instead, look at the governments and rebels that either steal it, or prevent it from arriving to suit their own agendas.
It wasn't so much IBM's design, but that the bios and msdos calls for IO were just plain too slow, which forced direct access to hardware.
Programs that didn't directly access the video hardware did not have a 640k limit. However, given that the available display adaptors had hard-wired addresses, once the industry started using direct acces, it was not possible to move the addresses of the video cards, which both the IBM design and msdos would have allowed.
On some (but I don't think all) of the PDP-10 processors, the registers were also the first few words of memory. To get a speed boost, some programs would put critical code into these addresses.
TECO was one of these progrmas. Your familiar EMACS began life as extensions to TECO
Come to think of it, todays microcomputer caches will hold a large chunk of a PDP-10's main memory as welll . . It seems to me that in '84 or so my university upgraded to 512k, though I don't remember whether that was in 8 bit bytes or 36 bit words . . .
Slashdot Mirror
In some of these parks, the rescue attempts are known as "I.N.S."--Interference with Natural Selection . . .
ahh, the possibilities.
Bad guy launches missle relying on GPS.
Change just a little to steer it. "Here, missle missle"
A bit more. "C'mon, you're still drifting away."
Finaly change: "THere you go. You're on target now. GO say 'Hi' to
mommy . .
And little Mikey the Missle, thinking that he has cleverly found D.C.,
returns to his launcher in Bahgdad.
:)
hawk
"many" of Willy's are based on prior work? Isn't it all of them except, awe, nuts, I can't remember the name. The last one, on the island, in which he knocks the other playrights of the time? Oh, yeah: Tempest.
Nothing original about the stories he wrote; it's the *telling* that he did soe well . . .
I "sing praises about Netscape 3" ???
.
:) }
.
Let's put this simply: Netscape 3 doesn't suck *as bad* as later versions of netscape and IE. As I mentioned, I don't normally use it, nor opera; they're both too bloated. I use lynx for nearly everything. Once I reconfdigured for a light background and for . on a link to open it with another copy of lynx, I was set.
and "pentium head?" . . . This obsolete thing under my desk is the first pentium I've ever been around. And it doesn't seem able to keep up with my 486/50 laptop. I doubt it could match my powerbook 180, either, but since that hasn't been assembled for years . .
\troll{ob ebay-dork: anyone want to buy the pieces
ANd I won't get into your luxurious resources; those machines that come fully assembled, include keyboards and a crt output, cycle times under a microsecond, etc . .
hack, more of a curmudgeon than usual . . .
With the information electronically, we'll print it when we need it--and then toss it. Need it again? print it again, toss it again.
A bound book is less likely to be tossed in this manner.
And, no, I don't think that reading on a screen is viable until we have high contrast, 300+dpi screens.
hawk
Yeah, right.
You're going to send me the extra memory and a faster processor to use the newer browser? And a patch to include the features removed from older broswers?
Netscape 4 or later is laughable on this machine. BUt even with enough memory and speed, I stick with netscape 3. It's much faster. It crashes less.
Furthermore, everything after netscape 3 and the last mosaic removes featrues I regularly use: auto-image loading by window (rather than all or nothing in a slow preferences setup), and the alt- sequence to go back pages.
I don't care about newer java and javascript. I have yet to see anyone do anything useful with either of these on a web page.
Even so, I'd rather see a slightly updated netscape 3 than the bloated successors. When mozilla runs on my machine I'll try it again. Until then, it's lynx with an occasional netscape3.
Yes, I am a professor of economics as well as a lawyer. But if you manage :)
:)
to construe this as legal advice, you probably need a shrink
>Of course I've never trusted central
>federal authorities like the fed to make free market decisions, but
>this fed-reserve is seasoned with the fear of inflation and the fear
>of depressions, so I think they'll do OK - at least to the extent of
>preventing major disasters.
Yes and no. Today the monetarists are pretty much in control of our
monetary policy. To put their views in a nutshell,
1) the government can't achieve anything by mucking around with monetary
policy, as people react to the policy and it is countered.
2) the government *can* screw up the economy with monetary policy--among
other things, it can make fluctuations more violent.
3) inflation is bad
4) deflation is worse
These lead to
5) any activist policy (an attempt to fix or better the economy) will
be defeated by choices of agents in the economyk
Therefore,
6) Have a well-known rule of monetary behavior.
Noting that
7) a growing economy with steady price levels needs more money to
handle the additional transactions,
we get the basic monetarist rule:
8) Have the money supply grow at a fixed, well known rate.
9) The rate which avoids inflation and deflation is the average rate
of growth of the economy.
They accept then that
10) You'll be high some years, and low others. But you get less fluctation
and smaller shocks than any other policy.
There are variations, and disputes as to what the actual rate in 9) is, and
whether or not it is changing. But this is will put you in the right
range for most modern monetarists.
These guys *expected* the 82 recession. However, since
11) if inflation is expected, the expected level is the *starting* point
the only way to get rid of existing inflation and establish the rules of 8 and
9 is to accept the recession to establish the credibility of these rules. It's
not that they wanted the recession, but believed that the longer it was
postponed, the worse it would be (look at countrys that actually got
hyperinflation).
While there's a couple of topics where monetarism has failed, most of its
predictions came true--notably, Milton Friedman was considered a crank
when he predicted the stagflation of the 70's--and then it happened.
We have essentially had an ongoing expansion for over 15 years. Yes,
there was a minor recession late in the Bush administration, which
barely met the definition. Overall, though, it's really the same
expansion, and *neither* party is going to muck with it. They'll try
to pressure Greenspan for short term gains, but both parties will keep
with him as long as he's willing, and he'll be replaced with someone
similar.
Hmm, I should clip those 11 points for next year's Money & Banking
class.
To summarize the monetarist summary: You can't make it any better,
so just avoid mucking it up.
hawk, as an economist today. Hmm, so should I sign it dr hawk?
But I never said that. I made no claim as to FreeBSD being better than OpenBSD.
However, for an individual developer, the operating system he already knows and is involved with is a better *choice* unless the existing advantages to the other operating system are compelling.
I had my 89 crown victoria tuned in 1990 when I moved from sea level to Vegas--the manual said it was due, and I'd just moved to a higher altitude. That was at 30,000. 30,000 miles later, I took it in again, as the manual said it was due. They charged me about $10 for looking at it, and gave it back, saying it had absolutely no need for a tuneup.
.
I've now gone almost 10 years and over 100,000 miles without a tuneup. But there's really nothing left to tuneup on these things--check and see if the spark plugs are fouled, replace any broken spark lines, and make sure the computer hasn't reset itself. My mileage is unchanged from back then, so I have no intention of taking it in any time soon . .
It wasn't for a couple of years after they built this one that they started advertising about 100,000 between tuneups . . . and they probably don't need that, either . . .
There are *much* simpler explanations than conspiracy theory.
Basically, they need to make sure the damn thing works before selling it.
Remember the GM diesel? Basically a buick gas-350 hastily converted and put into production.
Or the Cadilac 4-6-8? A wonderful idea; 8 cylinders for power, but it could drop a couple out once cruising. Its failure poisoned the well for this technology, and we've gone 20 years without such a system.
Wait until you get it right. *then* put it on the road.
That, sir, is one of the cleverest things I've seen in a long time, eliciting my rarely felt, "I wish I'd thought of that."
:)
(This from a man whose students have described him as a combination professor and standu-up comic
hawk, doffing his hat
well, of course! did anyone stop?
.
That's the *real* reason that linux isn't unix, you know--nethack isn't part of the default install on any distribution I know of . .
I had the amulet in an older version, and without cheating. I slipped and hit the wrong key, wasting a turn instead of wising for a scroll of recall (or whatever it was) and died instead. These days I'm marrieed with kids, and don't have that kind of time any more . . .
> What would Democrit (first postulated the existence of atoms ins
:)
.
>ancient greece) say if he saw a scanning tunneling microscope in action?
Ah, yes, Democretes (or whatever the correct phrase is). WIth the simple
demand, "Show me your atoms Democretes," Aristotle set physics back
a thousand years. Hmm, 200years/word, not bad
And in the last civilization that had a fighting chance of doing
the analytics for several hundred years (I'm guessing the next after
Athens would be Arabs in the late first millenium), he set it
back another 500 with his "natural rate of fall" instead of testing
gravity.
The biting irony of the whole thing is that in the introduction to
his Physics, he states the need to test with experiment . .
hawk, a philsopher and physicist as well
I'm serious about this. The corporation exists as a means of production, turning the profits over to the shareholders either as dividends or higher share price.
What gives the directors or executives any moral authority to decide which charities should receive the money? Isn't it better for the shareholders to make this decision?
Quite frankly, unless the corporation is contributing to charities I want to support, my reaction as a stockholder is that my money is being wasted (and yes, I think the same applies to political spending by both corporations and unions).
Just hand over the proceeds to the shareholders, and let the shareholders use *their* views on the socially responsible place to spend the money.
Academic enowments pay out at about 5% a year. Thus $1M pays $50k/year. This is enough to support something more than one student at the expensive schools, but not enough to support two students.
However, it supports in perpetuity; a $1M donation lets you have one student in school *forever*
hawk
You don't remember correctly.
If you can increase your price without losing all of your customers, you have market power. With barriers to entry, you can be a monopolist--microsoft certainly has enough market power to meet any normal economic meaning of monopolist.
A monopolist *will* charge different prices to different groups if it can keep them separate. It will also lower price and increase quantity if it feels heat that may lead to regulation, consumer boycott, or other activities that reduce its profit.
hawk, professor of economics
1) I don't know what they are off the cuff; see the article a day or two ago.
2) circular? The man doing the Trusted FreeBSD is *already* a major player in FreeBSD, making it the more natural choice for him. Code he knows inside and out, or code that's similar. Not a tough choice.
It's been answered before, too :)
1) not quite the same type of security issues.
2) more importantly, it's from a major contributor to FreeBSD.
You're not seriously trying to suggest that microsoft's documentation is better, or more likely to exist, are you?
:)
Once upon a time that was true. But it's been *several* years.
As just a single anecdote among many, a friend actually paid the one-problem support fee from ms while doing a school project. They just couldn't get one of the examples from the excel manual to work. The answer (that they paid for) turned out to be that microsoft had never implemented that feature, and that the example couldn't really be made to work.
I've found this to be roughly typical of attempts to use ms support and/or documentation.
The real tragedy is that 15-20 years ago microsoft's documentation was among the best available for microcomputers, if not the very best. (then again, they wrote good software then, too
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Britain did not take to (and rule) the seas and start an empire for commerce, nor Queen, nor glory, nor God.
Rather, the young men of England would do *anything* to get away from the food.
Speaking as an economist rather than an attorney this time . . .
Save fro the short and sudden famines that we occasionally see, starvation is a distribution problem, not a production problem.
More than enough food is produced to feed the world. More than enough is produced in or sent to countries suffering from starvation to feed them. It just doesn't get to those who need it.
By far the leading cause is corruption or malice, by governments and rebel military forces. At a distant second is central planning, which history has never found to work for anything bigger than a small village or commune--certainly not anything big enough to call a city, let alone a country [more than half of the soviet potato crop used to rot every year after being harvested do to failures of central planners].
If you want to fight starvation, gathering food isn't the way to do it. Put an infinite supply of ofod in those countries, and you will make at most a negligible difference in the number of folks starvign. Instead, look at the governments and rebels that either steal it, or prevent it from arriving to suit their own agendas.
hawk
It wasn't so much IBM's design, but that the bios and msdos calls for IO were just plain too slow, which forced direct access to hardware.
Programs that didn't directly access the video hardware did not have a 640k limit. However, given that the available display adaptors had hard-wired addresses, once the industry started using direct acces, it was not possible to move the addresses of the video cards, which both the IBM design and msdos would have allowed.
History repeats itself . . .
On some (but I don't think all) of the PDP-10 processors, the registers were also the first few words of memory. To get a speed boost, some programs would put critical code into these addresses.
TECO was one of these progrmas. Your familiar EMACS began life as extensions to TECO
Come to think of it, todays microcomputer caches will hold a large chunk of a PDP-10's main memory as welll . . It seems to me that in '84 or so my university upgraded to 512k, though I don't remember whether that was in 8 bit bytes or 36 bit words . . .
Yes, but the movie was not based on the book, but rather the short story. The book came after the movie.
>Another example is the classic 2001:A Space Odyssey, where Arthur
>Clarke was heavily involved in the visualization of his famous book.
Nope. The movie was spun from his short story "The Sentinel." THe book 2001 followed the movie.