Actually they do though I use their DSL service. The reason I mentioned them is that this story specifically stated that Earthlink has multi-computer fees.
As far as I can tell, they only charge more if you buy their home networking kit for $149. Then they want you to pay $9.95 a month more. If you buy someone else's home networking kit, they don't charge you any more money (according to their FAQ, you're allowed to set up your own home network, they won't support it though.) I guess the $9.95/mo is for support then, still it doesn't make too much sense to me.
Hello? How about my point that this isn't the first hardware bug to hit the world, and that AMD has no monopoly on hardware bugs. See the Linux source for workarounds for all sorts of hardware bugs, almost all having nothing to do with AMD. Are you just stupid or do you have stock in Intel?
Your argument is incoherant. The idea that lower cost equals lower performance can't be backed up by the presence of a bug, and it ignores real (as in "this is reality") market factors. There have been bugs in all sorts of hardware and software, even the highest performing hardware in the world. There is no correlation.
If you paid attention to benchmarks you'd see that in almost every case AMD has a higher cost effectiveness than Intel. If you have some specific examples of why AMD is not a good choice (as opposed to vague, illogical ramblings) then why don't you share them? Prove that your mumblings are, "not made up of bugus stuff"
Let me get this straight. You're claiming that if you don't like your job you should stay there none the less in order to appear humble to other people?
Do *you* do this? I've never heard of this idea before. If you are following this philosophy yourself I feel sorry for you. We'd reather you be happy.
Oh dear lord, Cadillac is the opposite of what apple is. Apple is hip, sleek, modern, smart. Cadillac is old, stupid, bad taste, pink polo/white yellow pants/golf shoes, overpriced detroit dinosaur junk. Apple != Cadillac in any way whatsoever.
The flaw in the argument is the unspoken idea that you can have success or you can have integrity (artistic, moral, philosophic, programic, whatever)
No, the unspoken idea is that the ultimate goal for any company is to have the biggest market share, and that you get the biggest market share by making a product that appeals to the greatest number of people, and that such a product can have no exemplary features. That's why the argument about McDonalds vs. the 5 star (ok Michelin only has 3 stars but anyway) restaurant is right.
If we all lived by Katz's logic (and I guess most of us do, by definition) we would have only McDonalds type places to eat. The important point of which he is apparently oblivious is that some people aren't happy with mediocracy. That's one reason we have Linux, *BSD, and OS X adherants like myself (yes, all three.)
That has merely been a debate for
the past few hundred years at least.
I'd guess that this has been a debate since about the time we humans aquired the ability to debate.
What if I routinely sent you email as.tiff images? Huge, color deep, beautifully anti-aliased pictures of text. I'd really like to do that, but I have a feeling you wouldn't be so happy about it.
Because the author has more control over layout in pdf, and because pdf is read-only. Read only is used in a lot of places to ensure that multiple versions of a document don't come into existance.
The whole point of this story is that we should ask them to save in text format. If they want us to read what they're sending us, then they will want to change the format and they will learn the simple skill of saving in text format.
I don't think that's too much to asky any computer user, even new users. In fact, I've been doing this for quite some time now and it works.
No such thing as pixel depth. There's color depth, but I think you're thinkin of plain 'ol resolution.
Anyway, higher resolution on a small LCD display is amazingly easy to read. I wouldn't have believed it myself until I saw a friend's Dell laptop with a 15", 1600 x 1200 display. It was beautiful and very legible.
The iBook titainium is only 1152 x 1024 but it looks good anyway. Maybe that's because of the nice anti-aliasing. Anyway, I agree it'd be nice to have higher resolution. I really expected it in the higer priced titainium.
engineering problems are generally solved by iterating through a set of equations (sometimes hundreds of
them). Iteration is the only way known to solve these problems. While you could rewrite your iteration into
recursion, you would probably be filling up massive amounts of memory uselessly.
First, OO languages are perfectly capabile of performing iteration. Second if you use languages that support tail recursion, you can avoid growing the stack in recursive invocations.
The important point is that there's nothing about OO languages that require or favor recursive vs. iterative coding.
So all these CG movies are really very bad and might lead to reduction of morale in the free modern western civilization.
I think the only important question is how much money can you make from CGI movies?
OK, I don't really think that but I'll guarentee you that hollywood thinks exactly that. As other people have pointed out, the rush to pump out CGI flicks is driven by perceived market demand. Making money is the bottom line pretty much everywhere here but especially in tinsel town.
Besides, hollywood has been making films with living unethical or otherwise poor role models for a long time. I'm no right wing fundamentalist, but I hate the poverty of morals in movies and television for the obvious reason, but also because it leads to meaningless (and thus boring) story lines. Meaningless action scences take up more and more space where dialog or other techniques used to be used to be employed to convey ideas.
On the other hand, I'd have to argue that morality, or at least politeness, has been taught through non human devices such as cartoons and puppets for many, many years. I'm not so sure why you wouldn't be able to do it with CGI. The real question is why do it if you can't make money off it? (The real answer is: People, and especially Parents, shoudln't patronize bad films.)
I agree, that's salesperson speak if I ever heard it. What surprises me is that people on/. don't expect this kind of thing from MS. Even if this memo is a fake, which I doubt, I have no doubt that many similar internal memos have been issued at Microsoft.
It's not just Microsoft either, any company that has to compete in the software business is likely using the same tactics. IBM did similar stuff many years ago, my company does it now. I think my company is little more honest than other companies, but I'm not in the room with the sales droid when they talk to the customer so I don't know for sure.
This memo is just a little peek under the skin at the distasteful rotten core of the capitalist system so cherished here in the U.S. 'o A.
I think he was talking about a radio broadcasting licence fee. Nobody thinks the Brittish people need a licence to listen to radio, though your post seems to imply that they need a licence to view television.
Don't be fooled by it existing for FreeBSD (or any other platform.) It may exist, but it'll never work as well as on their native platform, and it'll never be supported well either.
Re:Instability with the preempt patch?
on
Kernel 2.4.17 Out
·
· Score: 1
Yes this is off topic, but I wonder what you're using to play DVDs. I haven't had great luck with any DVD player.
Wait, I run an HTTP server on my home machine and I had no idea it was a business. Quick, where's my profit and loss statement? What's my ROI? Oh dear, there are sure to be some unhappy VC's upset about my failure to achieve profitability but I can't for the life of me remember who they are right now. Better issue some sort of press release ASAP!
I disagree. I think they want more money simply because they think they can get it. They're expecting that either the employee will pay more for their connection so they don't have to commute or that the employer will pay for it.
It's not a problem of common sense, it's the cable company trying to maximize profits (and I guess that's to be expected from a commercial enterprise.) But it's a totally artificial distinction (using a VPN) since you could carry on business activities without using a VPN and it doesn't take into account the distinction between running a business through the line and just working at home, which is where I think it's fair to draw the line.
I'm a programmer. If I want to work at home I'll occasionally need to update my local source tree or check in some files and of course send and receive email. Very little bandwidth used, but I do need to do so via a VPN. I'm not providing a business service through my personal internet connection, I'm just using it to do something I need to do while at home. I think that's fair.
Furthermore, I could be doing some research. For example, researching some technology or comparing competitor's products. These things I could do without using a VPN but it would be work none the less. Should I have a business connection for this too? What if I were just curious about competitor's products and wanted to research them on my own time?
I don't pay for a business telephone line when I occasionally make phone calls to or receive calls from work at home. I don't think that doing so makes my phone a business line.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they do though I use their DSL service. The reason I mentioned them is that this story specifically stated that Earthlink has multi-computer fees.
As far as I can tell, they only charge more if you buy their home networking kit for $149. Then they want you to pay $9.95 a month more. If you buy someone else's home networking kit, they don't charge you any more money (according to their FAQ, you're allowed to set up your own home network, they won't support it though.) I guess the $9.95/mo is for support then, still it doesn't make too much sense to me.
Hello? How about my point that this isn't the first hardware bug to hit the world, and that AMD has no monopoly on hardware bugs. See the Linux source for workarounds for all sorts of hardware bugs, almost all having nothing to do with AMD. Are you just stupid or do you have stock in Intel?
If you paid attention to benchmarks you'd see that in almost every case AMD has a higher cost effectiveness than Intel. If you have some specific examples of why AMD is not a good choice (as opposed to vague, illogical ramblings) then why don't you share them? Prove that your mumblings are, "not made up of bugus stuff"
Let me get this straight. You're claiming that if you don't like your job you should stay there none the less in order to appear humble to other people?
Do *you* do this? I've never heard of this idea before. If you are following this philosophy yourself I feel sorry for you. We'd reather you be happy.
Oh dear lord, Cadillac is the opposite of what apple is. Apple is hip, sleek, modern, smart. Cadillac is old, stupid, bad taste, pink polo/white yellow pants/golf shoes, overpriced detroit dinosaur junk. Apple != Cadillac in any way whatsoever.
What I said was that this is what the author of this story is saying, not it's what I'm saying or what I believe.
No, the unspoken idea is that the ultimate goal for any company is to have the biggest market share, and that you get the biggest market share by making a product that appeals to the greatest number of people, and that such a product can have no exemplary features. That's why the argument about McDonalds vs. the 5 star (ok Michelin only has 3 stars but anyway) restaurant is right. If we all lived by Katz's logic (and I guess most of us do, by definition) we would have only McDonalds type places to eat. The important point of which he is apparently oblivious is that some people aren't happy with mediocracy. That's one reason we have Linux, *BSD, and OS X adherants like myself (yes, all three.)
That has merely been a debate for the past few hundred years at least.
I'd guess that this has been a debate since about the time we humans aquired the ability to debate.
What if I routinely sent you email as .tiff images? Huge, color deep, beautifully anti-aliased pictures of text. I'd really like to do that, but I have a feeling you wouldn't be so happy about it.
Because the author has more control over layout in pdf, and because pdf is read-only. Read only is used in a lot of places to ensure that multiple versions of a document don't come into existance.
The whole point of this story is that we should ask them to save in text format. If they want us to read what they're sending us, then they will want to change the format and they will learn the simple skill of saving in text format.
I don't think that's too much to asky any computer user, even new users. In fact, I've been doing this for quite some time now and it works.
No such thing as pixel depth. There's color depth, but I think you're thinkin of plain 'ol resolution.
Anyway, higher resolution on a small LCD display is amazingly easy to read. I wouldn't have believed it myself until I saw a friend's Dell laptop with a 15", 1600 x 1200 display. It was beautiful and very legible.
Oops, I meant 1152 x 768
The iBook titainium is only 1152 x 1024 but it looks good anyway. Maybe that's because of the nice anti-aliasing. Anyway, I agree it'd be nice to have higher resolution. I really expected it in the higer priced titainium.
First, OO languages are perfectly capabile of performing iteration. Second if you use languages that support tail recursion, you can avoid growing the stack in recursive invocations.
The important point is that there's nothing about OO languages that require or favor recursive vs. iterative coding.
I think the only important question is how much money can you make from CGI movies?
OK, I don't really think that but I'll guarentee you that hollywood thinks exactly that. As other people have pointed out, the rush to pump out CGI flicks is driven by perceived market demand. Making money is the bottom line pretty much everywhere here but especially in tinsel town.
Besides, hollywood has been making films with living unethical or otherwise poor role models for a long time. I'm no right wing fundamentalist, but I hate the poverty of morals in movies and television for the obvious reason, but also because it leads to meaningless (and thus boring) story lines. Meaningless action scences take up more and more space where dialog or other techniques used to be used to be employed to convey ideas.
On the other hand, I'd have to argue that morality, or at least politeness, has been taught through non human devices such as cartoons and puppets for many, many years. I'm not so sure why you wouldn't be able to do it with CGI. The real question is why do it if you can't make money off it? (The real answer is: People, and especially Parents, shoudln't patronize bad films.)
It's not just Microsoft either, any company that has to compete in the software business is likely using the same tactics. IBM did similar stuff many years ago, my company does it now. I think my company is little more honest than other companies, but I'm not in the room with the sales droid when they talk to the customer so I don't know for sure.
This memo is just a little peek under the skin at the distasteful rotten core of the capitalist system so cherished here in the U.S. 'o A.
I think he was talking about a radio broadcasting licence fee. Nobody thinks the Brittish people need a licence to listen to radio, though your post seems to imply that they need a licence to view television.
Don't be fooled by it existing for FreeBSD (or any other platform.) It may exist, but it'll never work as well as on their native platform, and it'll never be supported well either.
Yes this is off topic, but I wonder what you're using to play DVDs. I haven't had great luck with any DVD player.
What are you, Einstein or something? Man, that's an impressive statement.
Wait, I run an HTTP server on my home machine and I had no idea it was a business. Quick, where's my profit and loss statement? What's my ROI? Oh dear, there are sure to be some unhappy VC's upset about my failure to achieve profitability but I can't for the life of me remember who they are right now. Better issue some sort of press release ASAP!
It's not a problem of common sense, it's the cable company trying to maximize profits (and I guess that's to be expected from a commercial enterprise.) But it's a totally artificial distinction (using a VPN) since you could carry on business activities without using a VPN and it doesn't take into account the distinction between running a business through the line and just working at home, which is where I think it's fair to draw the line.
Furthermore, I could be doing some research. For example, researching some technology or comparing competitor's products. These things I could do without using a VPN but it would be work none the less. Should I have a business connection for this too? What if I were just curious about competitor's products and wanted to research them on my own time?
I don't pay for a business telephone line when I occasionally make phone calls to or receive calls from work at home. I don't think that doing so makes my phone a business line.
The software's licence is pretty good too.