Private business can frequently provide services at a lower cost _to_themselves_ than the government. Because they can always jettison the high-cost areas.
That has nothing to do with lowering the cost _to_consumers_. Competition does that. Which is why the local unregulated monopolies have to do anything in their power to stop competition.
Because the high-cost American CEOs would howl through the mass media (that they own and operate) that communities doing so would be Communism! And Communism is Bad. Unamerican. "Worker's co-operative".. that's Socialism! Which is tantamont to Terrorism! Off to gitmo for you...
Government frequently does the job better than private business.
A recent study (I heard it on NPR) showed that the government-run VA provided better health care than the private competition. Something about knowing the patients would come back, enabling them to focus more on long-term and preventitive care.
Social Security spends less on administration than most private retirement plans. And they provide expensive-to-manage disability insurance as well.
Medicare and Medicaid provide health services with far lower overhead than private insurance companies; IIRC, spending 3% of revenues on administrative expenses vs. 30%. And that's with "free market competition".
When the private supplier has a monopoly position, watch out. The suppliers are maximizing their profit, which means high prices and expensive service has to be justified by the revenue that it brings in (or the revenue that would be lost if they didn't).
"Government subsidies" are another name for corporate welfare. And you can claim they won't be permanent, but they will end up like copyright, renewed and extended every time they're about to expire.
Microsoft didn't innovate with Office. Excel was an extension of Lotus 123 (which was an extension of VisiCalc; see www.bricklin.com). Word was an extension of MacWrite, coded with assistance from Apple. Microsoft bought PowerPoint. And Outlook? (or is that LookOut!) Lots of mail systems to copy.
The diplomats say "Don't develop nuclear weapons - there may be consequences". But then they look at Pakistan... sanctions for a few years, then nothing. And Pakistani A.Q. Khan helped the nuclear programs of K. Korea and Iran, among others.
Iraq demonstrably did not have nuclear weapons. They were invaded and their leader deposed.
The USA reservers the right to use nuclear weapons in self defense. Other countries believe they have the same right. So they are urgently developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
Consequences shmonsequences. There are none. Join the nuclear club, and get yourself a seat at the table with the other big boys.
It failed the tests. No reason to slow down pouring the concrete and buying the interceptor missles, though. All you'll have to do is pay the contractor more to fix them once they've worked out the bugs.
That would make as much sense as attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
Then again, with the bunch currently in charge of the USA, they might do something that stupid.
And wouldn't it be a trip, after slaughtering hundreds of millions, if they found out that the bomb was sent by Persians. Or Koreans. Or Our own home-grown Apocolyptic Christians.
I'm not sure that Dr. Ford is a Linux guy. He may claim he's a Linux guy, in an attempt to make his 'conversion' story a more compelling argument for the side he 'converted' to.
I would argue that Steve Wozniak and Dan Bricklin, more than Bill Gates, is why we have computers on our desks. Wozniak created the first PC that you could buy _and_use_, instead of put together as a hobby. Bricklin invented the computer spreadsheet. Together, they sold a lot. Enough for IBM to notice. IBM cobbled together the PC from off-the-shelf components, and then got outside vendors to supply the operating system.
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
people in government and the university community. But as the two people
who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his
role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it
is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we
know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in
the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high
speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on
how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating
the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into
an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials
in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the
passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as
well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies
that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for
continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private
sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of
extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today,
approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore
provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the
Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven
operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth
since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support
for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced
networking technology. No one in public life has been more intelle
What do Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say about Al Gore and the Internet?
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/200009/msg00052.html
Al Gore and the Internet
By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf
Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual
leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating
the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.
As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private
sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today,
approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the
Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.
There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving
"They're only safe because they're such a small target."
While this is no doubt true,...
I doubt that this is true. Apache has a greater market share than IIS. There are more exploits and worms for IIS than there are for Apache.
You may be safe if you are small. You are safer if your design takes security into account up front, and that design remains intact through implementation.
Windows is insecure by design. Therefore, there are windows exploits. Unix, Linux, and MacOS X were designed with multi-user security in mind from the beginning; they are more secure than Windows.
The shuttle had a mission: drive the cost of getting to Low Earth Orbit down by reusing the vehicle. To be a "space truck". At that, it failed miserably.
The mission for the CEV, "to boost national security by providing a presence in space" is so bland, so wishy-washy, so unmeasurable, that there will never be an accounting.
Oh, and Bush says we need to hack $300 Billion out of the budget to cut the deficit in half without raising taxes or undoing his precioussss tax cuts. Oh, and Defense is excluded. How big is the discretionary, non-defense budget? $440.9 Billion.
If your first computer was an Apple//e, you would be able to write the name the way it appeared on the machine. Apple ][, Apple ][+, Apple//e, Apple II GS, Apple IIc.
Although some advertisements called it the Apple IIe. That wasn't what was on the top of the machine.
Re:A special flop the Slashdot crowd will apprecia
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 1
The Mac portable was a hit in the group I worked in. I remember bringing it to a meeting, fireing up FrameMaker, and listening to the jaws of all of the Unix guys rattling on the table. "You can run FrameMaker on that thing?" Yup.
It was heavy. But it had enough horsepower to do outstanding stuff in 1990, stuff that noone thought a portable computer could do.
Oh, man. The boards I put into my//e. I don't remember how I stumbled on Synetix Systems. I got their RAM board (288K! four banks of 64K-bit chips; two banks of 16K). But it made UCSD Pascal a joy, rather than a chore. I got their SuperSprite card as well; Voice Synthesizer (I forget the name of the card they cloned...), Clock, and sprite graphics on one board.
Later, I discovered Applied Engineering, and replaced the Extended 80 Column card with one of theirs, and eventually filled it up with four banks of 256K-bit chips. Could it hold six? The Synetix card left; replaced IIRC with a card for the AE 3.5" disk drive.
I still hope to get images of all the disks off of the machine, and onto a live computer.
It took over 10 years for them to even begin to recover what they lost in the '80s.
Let's remember what Apple "Lost" in the 1980s.
Under John Sculley's leadership, Apple went from annual revenues of $1 Billion (1985) all the way down to $10 Billion (1993). At that point in time, Apple was still the largest personal computer company. The Mac was 8 to 10% of the market, and PC clones were all of the rest.
By 1987, it was clear that the 65816 processor would never develop "legs". Apple, by itself, was too small to keep Western Design Center in business and making competitive processors.
And yet they stayed in business and the 65816 found its way into the SNES.
The 65816 got its doors blown off in the speed race by the end of the 1980s. And there was no money to keep it competitive. So it had to find niches where it could survive.
900,000,000 lines of code * (1 page / 60 lines) * (1.5 inches/500 pages) * (1 foot / 12 inches) and I get 3,750 feet. Three world-trade-centers, plus a bit.
I bought an Apple//e in 1983; four-digit serial number. So I watched events closely. I was tempted to get the motherboard replacement to upgrade the//e to a//GS, but I never decided the cost would be worth it.
The mac turnaround came with the LaserWriter and the "Fat Mac" (Mac 512) in 1985. By Autumn of 1986, when the IIGS came out, the Mac was well-established as the graphics machine. MacDraw was incredible. The page layout programs (_Ready,_Set,_Go!_, 1-2-3, PageMaker) and the LaserWriter had already created a new industry. Yes, they were pricey.
By 1987, it was clear that the 65816 processor would never develop "legs". Apple, by itself, was too small to keep Western Design Center in business and making competitive processors. The IIGS was 2.8 MHz; the Macintosh was 8 MHz. And the 68000 wasn't just Apple's: Atari, Amiga, Apollo, and Sun were also using 68000s.
The Mac system architecture was clean, with plenty of room to grow. Only minor tweaks were needed to enable memory to grow past 8 Megabytes (the "32-bit clean" issue with Applications and firmware in ROMs) when a 1 MB machine was big, and PCs were still struggling to get past 640K. The IIGS couldn't grow like that. GS/OS was clearly porting Mac technologies back to the IIGS.
The Apple//e was EOL'ed in 1993 and the IIGS was EOL'ed in 1992. So the claim that the Apple II series supported Mac R&D into the late 1990s is uninformed.
Let's see; the shuttle was travelling at 1,575 mph, and accelerating. 30% of that is 472 mph, which is a little slower than the 525 mph impact speed available to anyone who can spell "google.com".
Imagine driving in a convertible on the freeway, holding a loaf of bread. Toss it straight up; how fast will it be going when it hits the semi that's tailgating? OK, now accelerate from 70 mph to mach 2 (calling Craig Breedlove; calling Craig Breedlove; a need for speed).
I'd rather go buy a cheapo tower that can take an ATX motherboard of my choosing...it's cheaper to deal with.
A few years back, my (now ex-) wife's computer was running out of steam. So I decided to be nice and upgrade it for her.
Everything about the computer needed to be upgraded. There was nothing to reuse! The old machine held an AT motherboard; the new ones were ATX. So even the case was obsolete. Video was wrong, RAM was wrong, HD was too small.
So I bought her a new computer, and kept the old one. Got linux running on it... named the machine "codger". The fast Mac, when it was running Linux, was "dodger". An old Bentson and Quayle relic...
Slashdot Mirror
Private business can frequently provide services at a lower cost _to_themselves_ than the government. Because they can always jettison the high-cost areas.
That has nothing to do with lowering the cost _to_consumers_. Competition does that. Which is why the local unregulated monopolies have to do anything in their power to stop competition.
Because the high-cost American CEOs would howl through the mass media (that they own and operate) that communities doing so would be Communism! And Communism is Bad. Unamerican. "Worker's co-operative".. that's Socialism! Which is tantamont to Terrorism! Off to gitmo for you...
Government frequently does the job better than private business.
A recent study (I heard it on NPR) showed that the government-run VA provided better health care than the private competition. Something about knowing the patients would come back, enabling them to focus more on long-term and preventitive care.
Social Security spends less on administration than most private retirement plans. And they provide expensive-to-manage disability insurance as well.
Medicare and Medicaid provide health services with far lower overhead than private insurance companies; IIRC, spending 3% of revenues on administrative expenses vs. 30%. And that's with "free market competition".
When the private supplier has a monopoly position, watch out. The suppliers are maximizing their profit, which means high prices and expensive service has to be justified by the revenue that it brings in (or the revenue that would be lost if they didn't).
"Government subsidies" are another name for corporate welfare. And you can claim they won't be permanent, but they will end up like copyright, renewed and extended every time they're about to expire.
Right on.
CATV used to stand for "Community Antenna Television".
Microsoft didn't innovate with Office. Excel was an extension of Lotus 123 (which was an extension of VisiCalc; see www.bricklin.com). Word was an extension of MacWrite, coded with assistance from Apple. Microsoft bought PowerPoint. And Outlook? (or is that LookOut!) Lots of mail systems to copy.
The diplomats say "Don't develop nuclear weapons - there may be consequences". But then they look at Pakistan... sanctions for a few years, then nothing. And Pakistani A.Q. Khan helped the nuclear programs of K. Korea and Iran, among others.
Iraq demonstrably did not have nuclear weapons. They were invaded and their leader deposed.
The USA reservers the right to use nuclear weapons in self defense. Other countries believe they have the same right. So they are urgently developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
Consequences shmonsequences. There are none. Join the nuclear club, and get yourself a seat at the table with the other big boys.
Oh, the ABM system has been tested all right.
It failed the tests. No reason to slow down pouring the concrete and buying the interceptor missles, though. All you'll have to do is pay the contractor more to fix them once they've worked out the bugs.
That would make as much sense as attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.
Then again, with the bunch currently in charge of the USA, they might do something that stupid.
And wouldn't it be a trip, after slaughtering hundreds of millions, if they found out that the bomb was sent by Persians. Or Koreans. Or Our own home-grown Apocolyptic Christians.
I'm not sure that Dr. Ford is a Linux guy. He may claim he's a Linux guy, in an attempt to make his 'conversion' story a more compelling argument for the side he 'converted' to.
I would argue that Steve Wozniak and Dan Bricklin, more than Bill Gates, is why we have computers on our desks. Wozniak created the first PC that you could buy _and_use_, instead of put together as a hobby. Bricklin invented the computer spreadsheet. Together, they sold a lot. Enough for IBM to notice. IBM cobbled together the PC from off-the-shelf components, and then got outside vendors to supply the operating system.
All of that happened without Bill Gates.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/200009/msg00052.html
What do Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say about Al Gore and the Internet? http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/200009/msg00052.html Al Gore and the Internet By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science. As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation. There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving
I doubt that this is true. Apache has a greater market share than IIS. There are more exploits and worms for IIS than there are for Apache.
You may be safe if you are small. You are safer if your design takes security into account up front, and that design remains intact through implementation.
Windows is insecure by design. Therefore, there are windows exploits. Unix, Linux, and MacOS X were designed with multi-user security in mind from the beginning; they are more secure than Windows.
The shuttle had a mission: drive the cost of getting to Low Earth Orbit down by reusing the vehicle. To be a "space truck". At that, it failed miserably.
The mission for the CEV, "to boost national security by providing a presence in space" is so bland, so wishy-washy, so unmeasurable, that there will never be an accounting.
Oh, and Bush says we need to hack $300 Billion out of the budget to cut the deficit in half without raising taxes or undoing his precioussss tax cuts. Oh, and Defense is excluded. How big is the discretionary, non-defense budget? $440.9 Billion.
If your first computer was an Apple //e, you would be able to write the name the way it appeared on the machine. //e, Apple II GS, Apple IIc.
Apple ][, Apple ][+, Apple
Although some advertisements called it the Apple IIe. That wasn't what was on the top of the machine.
The Mac portable was a hit in the group I worked in. I remember bringing it to a meeting, fireing up FrameMaker, and listening to the jaws of all of the Unix guys rattling on the table. "You can run FrameMaker on that thing?" Yup.
It was heavy. But it had enough horsepower to do outstanding stuff in 1990, stuff that noone thought a portable computer could do.
IBM insisted for a second source for Intel parts from the 8088/IBM PC days. As it worked out, IBM has the right to manufacture 486s.
The IBM PC worked out pretty well for Intel.
Oh, man. The boards I put into my //e. I don't remember how I stumbled on Synetix Systems. I got their RAM board (288K! four banks of 64K-bit chips; two banks of 16K). But it made UCSD Pascal a joy, rather than a chore. I got their SuperSprite card as well; Voice Synthesizer (I forget the name of the card they cloned...), Clock, and sprite graphics on one board.
Later, I discovered Applied Engineering, and replaced the Extended 80 Column card with one of theirs, and eventually filled it up with four banks of 256K-bit chips. Could it hold six? The Synetix card left; replaced IIRC with a card for the AE 3.5" disk drive.
I still hope to get images of all the disks off of the machine, and onto a live computer.
Apple produced the IIGS in 1986. And the Mac LC was introduced in 1990. Four years later.
Now, a IIGS card for the LC series would have been good.
Let's remember what Apple "Lost" in the 1980s.
Under John Sculley's leadership, Apple went from annual revenues of $1 Billion (1985) all the way down to $10 Billion (1993). At that point in time, Apple was still the largest personal computer company. The Mac was 8 to 10% of the market, and PC clones were all of the rest.
The 65816 got its doors blown off in the speed race by the end of the 1980s. And there was no money to keep it competitive. So it had to find niches where it could survive.
900,000,000 lines of code * (1 page / 60 lines) * (1.5 inches/500 pages) * (1 foot / 12 inches) and I get 3,750 feet. Three world-trade-centers, plus a bit.
I bought an Apple //e in 1983; four-digit serial number. So I watched events closely. I was tempted to get the motherboard replacement to upgrade the //e to a //GS, but I never decided the cost would be worth it.
//e was EOL'ed in 1993 and the IIGS was EOL'ed in 1992. So the claim that the Apple II series supported Mac R&D into the late 1990s is uninformed.
The mac turnaround came with the LaserWriter and the "Fat Mac" (Mac 512) in 1985. By Autumn of 1986, when the IIGS came out, the Mac was well-established as the graphics machine. MacDraw was incredible. The page layout programs (_Ready,_Set,_Go!_, 1-2-3, PageMaker) and the LaserWriter had already created a new industry. Yes, they were pricey.
By 1987, it was clear that the 65816 processor would never develop "legs". Apple, by itself, was too small to keep Western Design Center in business and making competitive processors. The IIGS was 2.8 MHz; the Macintosh was 8 MHz. And the 68000 wasn't just Apple's: Atari, Amiga, Apollo, and Sun were also using 68000s.
The Mac system architecture was clean, with plenty of room to grow. Only minor tweaks were needed to enable memory to grow past 8 Megabytes (the "32-bit clean" issue with Applications and firmware in ROMs) when a 1 MB machine was big, and PCs were still struggling to get past 640K. The IIGS couldn't grow like that. GS/OS was clearly porting Mac technologies back to the IIGS.
The Apple
Let's see; the shuttle was travelling at 1,575 mph, and accelerating. 30% of that is 472 mph, which is a little slower than the 525 mph impact speed available to anyone who can spell "google.com".
Imagine driving in a convertible on the freeway, holding a loaf of bread. Toss it straight up; how fast will it be going when it hits the semi that's tailgating? OK, now accelerate from 70 mph to mach 2 (calling Craig Breedlove; calling Craig Breedlove; a need for speed).
A few years back, my (now ex-) wife's computer was running out of steam. So I decided to be nice and upgrade it for her.
Everything about the computer needed to be upgraded. There was nothing to reuse! The old machine held an AT motherboard; the new ones were ATX. So even the case was obsolete. Video was wrong, RAM was wrong, HD was too small.
So I bought her a new computer, and kept the old one. Got linux running on it... named the machine "codger". The fast Mac, when it was running Linux, was "dodger". An old Bentson and Quayle relic...