Does anyone else notice that the scores seem to correlate with distance from the north pole? I've also noticed that the UN "best countries to live in" list often shows the same tendency.
You make a very valid point, but you don't understand the magnitude of the issue.
This man is *accused* of being the largest serial killer in Canadian history. We're talking about over a dozen women that the prosecutors have evidence for, and probably over 50 women total, once all the digging is completed. This isn't a case where people in B.C. are interested, but people around here in Ontario are not... this is a story that nearly everyone in Canada knows about.
Now, if he did it, and is convicted, he'll go away for the rest of his life, and after the verdict, the press will be able to report all the facts of the case that the public can stomach.
However, he has the right to a fair trial, and I will stand beside him and fight for that right, even if I was almost certain he was guilty. I may even hate him for it, but I will place myself between him and any American style lynch mob because I maintain that he must be proven guilty in a fair trial before he is punished. In the mean time, I can hold off any morbid curiosity until the end of the trial.
Okay, you've never travelled in North America, have you. You really don't understand how far people are apart here. You need population density to make these kinds of networks worthwhile, or they aren't economically feasible. Simply put, analog towers service fewer simultaneous users, but cover a much larger range. Therefore, if you have lower population density, analog suits you better.
To illustrate population density differences, check out the CIA world factbook, and divide the population of the U.S. by the area, then do the same with some European countries.
U.S.: 30 people per km^2 Romania: 97 people per km^2 France: 110 people per km^2 Germany: 238 people per km^2 U.K.: 248 people per km^2
You see, the U.S. can't offer digital service to it's entire population unless the entire population lives in urban areas.
Compare that to where I'm from - Canada, at 3.5 people per km^2. However, Canadians tend to be urban dwellers, with around 80% living in cities in the more moderate climates, so our cell phone coverage is similar to the U.S., with digital coverage to most people, but analog coverage to the rest of the populated areas.
It's similar to the automobile phenomenon... I've heard many Europeans can't believe how many cars we own in North America, but again due to population density, public transportation just won't take you where you want to go. The country is huge. If we wanted to do a "road trip" to visit relatives on the east coast, that would be a 25 hour drive, and I live near Toronto! Visiting my relatives in Vancouver would be a 40 hour drive! Of course, I'd probably fly...
Erm, not to rip on Canadians... (I'm Canadian) but the age of consent in Canada is 14. It's going to change soon, partly because of the publicity when two U.S. priests were arrested in Quebec for trying to pay two young male prostitutes for sex (yes, the prostitutes were also breaking the law, but they are young offenders, so the penalty was small). Basically, the law makes it too difficult for police to crack down on pedophiles.
Personally, I think it should be 16, with allowances for an age difference as well (so it's not considered illegal for a 16 year old to sleep with a 15 year old).
First, the point of my original post was to state that it's very bad to teach someone that objects themselves can be "good" or "bad."
I guess I'll spell it out for you a little plainer: People Don't Want to Ban Guns Because They Are "Bad"... they want to ban guns because guns are Not Safe.
Is it that hard to understand? The point is, we aren't allowed to have nuclear reactors at home because that's dangerous. There isn't anything Morally wrong with nuclear reactors - they're neither good nor bad. The fact is, they pose a grave danger to the public, and since the government's job is to protect us from each other (not from ourselves), the government assesses the risk and deems it too dangerous for the average person to keep a breeder reactor in their backyard.
Let me put it this way: you put the "think" in "ignorance."
Isn't that an "ad hominem"(sp?) logical fallacy, Mr. Intellectual? I mean really, does it make you feel good about yourself to attack me personally? Does that prove the point in your mind? I realize that personal insults usually take the place of logic in Americans' arguments, but this is supposed to be a place to actually discuss the issues, not flame each other.
But the gun... no, the gun is neither good nor bad.
Exactly! I was trying to explain to my kid's teacher why they should repeal that rule against bringing a nailbomb to school (it was only for show-and-tell). I mean it was a cool father-daughter project that we spent many hours on together. I even explained to that dimwitted teacher that that it's completely safe; after all, you'd have to light the fuse for it to go off!
Unfortunately, I had to put my next project on hold: a nuclear breeder reactor, because her Girl Guides leader said THAT wasn't an acceptable project. Sheesh! I mean, we were going to use gloves and everything.
People need to understand that my kids do whatever I tell them, so when I left that loaded handgun on the coffee table and told them to leave it alone, I knew they would do exactly as I said, because MY kids always do exactly what I say. If my son picked it up and looked down the barrel and pulled the trigger, it wouldn't be due to curiosity, it was because his morality told him to do it. Thank GOD I instilled morality in my kids in place of curiosity.
not some faster than light boat that uses a gear powered engine
So, apparently you hated _The Time Machine_. After all, the idea of having to use kinetic energy during the process of converting energy from one form to another is completely implausible.
This is a very common issue at the company I work for. Any company that does custom engineering work (we do computer hardware, electrical design, installation, and of course software) for more than a single customer MUST retain ownership of their code simply because you can't afford to rewrite all of your software every time you get a contract with a different company.
When we quote a project, we do it based on the amount of work it will take to accomplish it, but we don't sell them hours of engineering work. We sell them a working system. If we budget 500 hours and it takes 1000 hours to write some custom piece of software, the customer doesn't have to pay us twice as much for the project. We sell them a system, with the license to use the software, and we give them a copy of the code as a deliverable for them to modify and use for the specific system we sold them.
Most people think companies like ours try to retain ownership so that the customer has to pay us royalties, but the fact is, we rarely, if ever, charge for maintenance. We sell a warranty with the system, so we fix any bugs that arise. If we do a good job, they hire us back to make changes to the system, which we do get to charge for. However, our customer can just as easily go to a different company and hire them to make the change, because our software license permits that.
The real reason we have to retain ownership is so that we can freely copy portions of code from previous projects to use in future projects. Say, for instance, we wrote a code module that abstracts a certain piece of hardware. If we used that same piece of hardware on another project, we would want to use the same code module to make our life easier. Unfortunately, if our previous customer owned the software, we would have to pay THEM royalties to use that software!!! The fact is, retaining ownership of that code gives us a competitive advantage in future projects, because some of our development is already done, so we can try to under-bid our competition (who are doing the same thing we are, by the way).
In fact, writing software today is rarely a case of writing code from the ground up, and selling it to someone. Now our job is to take existing pieces and put them together to form a system. That's why companies in our industry are called "Systems Integrators".
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Until the president has the ability to veto the individual components of a piece of legislation, we'll always have this type of pork.
I'm no expert on politics, but wouldn't you get yourself into this type of situation:
Original bill: Let's make it illegal to wear a black suit.
Amendment:...except to funerals.
Assuming it only goes through congress because someone tacked on the amendment, should the president then have the ability to veto just the amendment?
Did you know that there are more cops in New York City than there are soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Did you know there's approximately similar numbers of people in New York City and in Canada? (that is, somewhere in the 25 million to 30 million range). Doesn't it say more about the safety of New York City if you need an 'army' of cops to police it?
When Bush was campaigning against health care in the U.S., he loved to say that there were more MRI's in New York than in Canada. Was he really making any point, if there are more people in New York State than in Canada? Even if he meant New York City, you can't compare an urban environment to an entire country, both rural and urban.
How's that for perspective, buddy?
However, I agree with your last point, that in future conflicts, brute force should take a back seat to surgical strike type operations and elite forces.
In the long term if the production of most of our goods ships to China, the wealth of the nations will also be shipped there too.
Actually, all this does for your (I'm guessing) European country is free up your labour. If you can free up 1000 workers with higher educations by moving the work to a country with a less educated/skilled workforce (I'm talking line workers here), then you free up 1000 educated/skilled people for your work force. That makes the world economy more efficient (i.e. the least skilled person who is qualified for a job should be the one doing it). Those 1000 Chinese who got jobs just became consumers, and some of them would probably like to buy something made in Europe. In return, Europeans get to save 60% on their computer equipment, meaning their businesses can now operate more efficiently too.
Your job is not to bitch and complain, but to get off your sorry ass and think of a way to better exploit the workers in your own country. Dream up a new product that you can produce with those 1000 new (relatively highly skilled, compared to the 3rd world) workers. Start a business, hire them! Have you not learned the reasons why capitalism DOES actually work sometimes?
I don't understand why they feel the need to isolate their Canadian initiative, rather than giving Canada the access to computing power far greater than they can acheive on their own.
Probably because the Canadian researchers got tired of hearing things like, "so, ye'all are from Keaynada, huh? We was just sittin up on the ruff and be drinkin sum pap."
I've been following the development of a new MMORPG, called Star Wars: Galaxies. The designers are trying some new concepts with the economies, and they really seem interesting:
1) Raw resources only exist in a set quantity. When a resource runs out, it is replaced by a brand new one, and the old one will never be available again. All the designs and items using the old material will become rares, meaning: a) designers stay busy, and b) prospectors stay busy.
2) You only get crafting experience when an item is *used*, not when it's made. Therefore, you are naturally motivated to make things people want, not whatever increases your skills the most.
A better example of a "subsidy" is when the government pays a farmer for not growing crops. Here, it's much harder to make the case that the farmer is simply getting a service that he paid for with his taxes.
It would be hard to argue that this is what the original poster meant by privatization, though. Farmers are privatized, but they get government subsidies.
It seems to me there needs to be a heavily standardized educational "base."
I agree. I think that goes along with the whole "level playing field" idea.
But if privatization always works, why are airports going back to federally employed security? It's precisely because they're trying to enforce a standardized base level of security. The private security firms are great at providing low prices, but they don't seem capable of providing adequate security at the same time. It's the whole lowest bidder problem that we tend to get into whenever the government starts asking for bids.
The private sector, in the long term, is far more efficient than government services.
I was responding to the original claim that everything should be privatized. I agree that privatization is good in some cases. However, there IS a reason for public funding of certain infrastructure.
You must admit that public education is better at establishing "a level playing field" than completely privatized education. Do you really think that the child of a wealthy person *deserves*, or has a *right* to a better education than any other child? Do you think it's acceptable that a child could miss out on an education because their parents can't afford it?
We have public funding for things we consider basic rights. We all think everyone has a right to an education, so we constructed systems to give everyone access to those services. We also think everyone should have access to clean water, so we have municipal water utilities. There is room for discussion of these issues, e.g. an American would say that health care is a priviledge, whereas a Canadian would say that access to basic health care is a right. That's why Canada has a universal health care system, and the U.S. does not.
The reasons why we choose to create public services is because of the argument that *everyone* benefits when access is available. To go back to previous examples: if you use public funds to connect everyone to the electrical grid, then you've increased the demand for electrical appliances. If you use public funds to build roads, then you make it easier for all companies and individuals to do business. If you use public funds to educate all children, then more kids will grow up to contribute to your economy, which makes everyone wealthier. So, in the long run, I would suggest that sometimes the private sector is *less* efficient.
Riiiight. The streets around your house will look awful funny when only 70% of your neighbours pay their road construction bills. 30% of your street will be dirt road, the rest paved?
I suppose education should be completely privatized too. That way, the only chance a child from a lower economic class has to make something of themselves will be torn away because their parents can only afford to choose two of these three alternatives: 1) feed them 2) clothe them 3) educate them.
I suppose, by your logic, that I should have to pay for my own dedicated wiring from my house to the electricity provider of my choice, right? Would we really have, like, 99% of all houses connected to the electical grid (therefore, accelerating the growth of other technologies like electrical appliances) if distribution was privatized? Would there be any incentive to have a step down station in bumsville, nowhere?
Markets work, u know?
Markets work with quite a bit of help. Do you think they'd work if we didn't have laws regulating fraud, disclosure, etc.?
I think the more interesting question isn't "what if," but "why?"
The obvious answer to "why?" is always "why not?" That means someone will some day, if possible, try this. That's why I'm saying it needs to be discussed first.
I'd rather think of this as a thought experiment. "What if?" This may not be possible in the time frame discussed, or it may never be possible, but it's more interesting just to say, if it was possible, what would that mean. We have a responsibility to discuss it before it happens, so we don't get caught with our ethical pants down like we did with human cloning (I mean fully fledged humans, not stem cells).
Actually most accessibility features are quite cheap.
Interesting, but will it be that cheap to add accessibility to corporate web sites? Especially since companies have to keep redesigning web sites - it isn't like a building where you build it once, and it sits there for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Reporters Without Borders worldwide press freedom index
Does anyone else notice that the scores seem to correlate with distance from the north pole? I've also noticed that the UN "best countries to live in" list often shows the same tendency.
There's also the option of changing venues.
You make a very valid point, but you don't understand the magnitude of the issue.
This man is *accused* of being the largest serial killer in Canadian history. We're talking about over a dozen women that the prosecutors have evidence for, and probably over 50 women total, once all the digging is completed. This isn't a case where people in B.C. are interested, but people around here in Ontario are not... this is a story that nearly everyone in Canada knows about.
Now, if he did it, and is convicted, he'll go away for the rest of his life, and after the verdict, the press will be able to report all the facts of the case that the public can stomach.
However, he has the right to a fair trial, and I will stand beside him and fight for that right, even if I was almost certain he was guilty. I may even hate him for it, but I will place myself between him and any American style lynch mob because I maintain that he must be proven guilty in a fair trial before he is punished. In the mean time, I can hold off any morbid curiosity until the end of the trial.
Seriously, guys, get with the rest of the world.
Okay, you've never travelled in North America, have you. You really don't understand how far people are apart here. You need population density to make these kinds of networks worthwhile, or they aren't economically feasible. Simply put, analog towers service fewer simultaneous users, but cover a much larger range. Therefore, if you have lower population density, analog suits you better.
To illustrate population density differences, check out the CIA world factbook, and divide the population of the U.S. by the area, then do the same with some European countries.
U.S.: 30 people per km^2
Romania: 97 people per km^2
France: 110 people per km^2
Germany: 238 people per km^2
U.K.: 248 people per km^2
You see, the U.S. can't offer digital service to it's entire population unless the entire population lives in urban areas.
Compare that to where I'm from - Canada, at 3.5 people per km^2. However, Canadians tend to be urban dwellers, with around 80% living in cities in the more moderate climates, so our cell phone coverage is similar to the U.S., with digital coverage to most people, but analog coverage to the rest of the populated areas.
It's similar to the automobile phenomenon... I've heard many Europeans can't believe how many cars we own in North America, but again due to population density, public transportation just won't take you where you want to go. The country is huge. If we wanted to do a "road trip" to visit relatives on the east coast, that would be a 25 hour drive, and I live near Toronto! Visiting my relatives in Vancouver would be a 40 hour drive! Of course, I'd probably fly...
So anyway, I guess size does matter.
Yeah, but they're not 15 ... this could be bad.
Erm, not to rip on Canadians... (I'm Canadian) but the age of consent in Canada is 14. It's going to change soon, partly because of the publicity when two U.S. priests were arrested in Quebec for trying to pay two young male prostitutes for sex (yes, the prostitutes were also breaking the law, but they are young offenders, so the penalty was small). Basically, the law makes it too difficult for police to crack down on pedophiles.
Personally, I think it should be 16, with allowances for an age difference as well (so it's not considered illegal for a 16 year old to sleep with a 15 year old).
First, the point of my original post was to state that it's very bad to teach someone that objects themselves can be "good" or "bad."
I guess I'll spell it out for you a little plainer: People Don't Want to Ban Guns Because They Are "Bad"... they want to ban guns because guns are Not Safe.
Is it that hard to understand? The point is, we aren't allowed to have nuclear reactors at home because that's dangerous. There isn't anything Morally wrong with nuclear reactors - they're neither good nor bad. The fact is, they pose a grave danger to the public, and since the government's job is to protect us from each other (not from ourselves), the government assesses the risk and deems it too dangerous for the average person to keep a breeder reactor in their backyard.
Let me put it this way: you put the "think" in "ignorance."
Isn't that an "ad hominem"(sp?) logical fallacy, Mr. Intellectual? I mean really, does it make you feel good about yourself to attack me personally? Does that prove the point in your mind? I realize that personal insults usually take the place of logic in Americans' arguments, but this is supposed to be a place to actually discuss the issues, not flame each other.
But the gun ... no, the gun is neither good nor bad.
Exactly! I was trying to explain to my kid's teacher why they should repeal that rule against bringing a nailbomb to school (it was only for show-and-tell). I mean it was a cool father-daughter project that we spent many hours on together. I even explained to that dimwitted teacher that that it's completely safe; after all, you'd have to light the fuse for it to go off!
Unfortunately, I had to put my next project on hold: a nuclear breeder reactor, because her Girl Guides leader said THAT wasn't an acceptable project. Sheesh! I mean, we were going to use gloves and everything.
People need to understand that my kids do whatever I tell them, so when I left that loaded handgun on the coffee table and told them to leave it alone, I knew they would do exactly as I said, because MY kids always do exactly what I say. If my son picked it up and looked down the barrel and pulled the trigger, it wouldn't be due to curiosity, it was because his morality told him to do it. Thank GOD I instilled morality in my kids in place of curiosity.
What if we used a beowulf cluster of toothpicks?
not some faster than light boat that uses a gear powered engine
So, apparently you hated _The Time Machine_. After all, the idea of having to use kinetic energy during the process of converting energy from one form to another is completely implausible.
This is a very common issue at the company I work for. Any company that does custom engineering work (we do computer hardware, electrical design, installation, and of course software) for more than a single customer MUST retain ownership of their code simply because you can't afford to rewrite all of your software every time you get a contract with a different company.
When we quote a project, we do it based on the amount of work it will take to accomplish it, but we don't sell them hours of engineering work. We sell them a working system. If we budget 500 hours and it takes 1000 hours to write some custom piece of software, the customer doesn't have to pay us twice as much for the project. We sell them a system, with the license to use the software, and we give them a copy of the code as a deliverable for them to modify and use for the specific system we sold them.
Most people think companies like ours try to retain ownership so that the customer has to pay us royalties, but the fact is, we rarely, if ever, charge for maintenance. We sell a warranty with the system, so we fix any bugs that arise. If we do a good job, they hire us back to make changes to the system, which we do get to charge for. However, our customer can just as easily go to a different company and hire them to make the change, because our software license permits that.
The real reason we have to retain ownership is so that we can freely copy portions of code from previous projects to use in future projects. Say, for instance, we wrote a code module that abstracts a certain piece of hardware. If we used that same piece of hardware on another project, we would want to use the same code module to make our life easier. Unfortunately, if our previous customer owned the software, we would have to pay THEM royalties to use that software!!! The fact is, retaining ownership of that code gives us a competitive advantage in future projects, because some of our development is already done, so we can try to under-bid our competition (who are doing the same thing we are, by the way).
In fact, writing software today is rarely a case of writing code from the ground up, and selling it to someone. Now our job is to take existing pieces and put them together to form a system. That's why companies in our industry are called "Systems Integrators".
Until the president has the ability to veto the individual components of a piece of legislation, we'll always have this type of pork.
...except to funerals.
I'm no expert on politics, but wouldn't you get yourself into this type of situation:
Original bill: Let's make it illegal to wear a black suit.
Amendment:
Assuming it only goes through congress because someone tacked on the amendment, should the president then have the ability to veto just the amendment?
Did you know that there are more cops in New York City than there are soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Did you know there's approximately similar numbers of people in New York City and in Canada? (that is, somewhere in the 25 million to 30 million range). Doesn't it say more about the safety of New York City if you need an 'army' of cops to police it?
When Bush was campaigning against health care in the U.S., he loved to say that there were more MRI's in New York than in Canada. Was he really making any point, if there are more people in New York State than in Canada? Even if he meant New York City, you can't compare an urban environment to an entire country, both rural and urban.
How's that for perspective, buddy?
However, I agree with your last point, that in future conflicts, brute force should take a back seat to surgical strike type operations and elite forces.
The dont call it the worlds oldest profession for nothing.
You mean "feeling" holograms will let you be a sheep herder?
-- If you don't get it, don't mod it.
In the long term if the production of most of our goods ships to China, the wealth of the nations will also be shipped there too.
Actually, all this does for your (I'm guessing) European country is free up your labour. If you can free up 1000 workers with higher educations by moving the work to a country with a less educated/skilled workforce (I'm talking line workers here), then you free up 1000 educated/skilled people for your work force. That makes the world economy more efficient (i.e. the least skilled person who is qualified for a job should be the one doing it). Those 1000 Chinese who got jobs just became consumers, and some of them would probably like to buy something made in Europe. In return, Europeans get to save 60% on their computer equipment, meaning their businesses can now operate more efficiently too.
Your job is not to bitch and complain, but to get off your sorry ass and think of a way to better exploit the workers in your own country. Dream up a new product that you can produce with those 1000 new (relatively highly skilled, compared to the 3rd world) workers. Start a business, hire them! Have you not learned the reasons why capitalism DOES actually work sometimes?
I don't understand why they feel the need to isolate their Canadian initiative, rather than giving Canada the access to computing power far greater than they can acheive on their own.
Probably because the Canadian researchers got tired of hearing things like, "so, ye'all are from Keaynada, huh? We was just sittin up on the ruff and be drinkin sum pap."
I've been following the development of a new MMORPG, called Star Wars: Galaxies. The designers are trying some new concepts with the economies, and they really seem interesting:
1) Raw resources only exist in a set quantity. When a resource runs out, it is replaced by a brand new one, and the old one will never be available again. All the designs and items using the old material will become rares, meaning: a) designers stay busy, and b) prospectors stay busy.
2) You only get crafting experience when an item is *used*, not when it's made. Therefore, you are naturally motivated to make things people want, not whatever increases your skills the most.
I'm really interested to see how it turns out.
A better example of a "subsidy" is when the government pays a farmer for not growing crops. Here, it's much harder to make the case that the farmer is simply getting a service that he paid for with his taxes.
It would be hard to argue that this is what the original poster meant by privatization, though. Farmers are privatized, but they get government subsidies.
It seems to me there needs to be a heavily standardized educational "base."
I agree. I think that goes along with the whole "level playing field" idea.
But if privatization always works, why are airports going back to federally employed security? It's precisely because they're trying to enforce a standardized base level of security. The private security firms are great at providing low prices, but they don't seem capable of providing adequate security at the same time. It's the whole lowest bidder problem that we tend to get into whenever the government starts asking for bids.
The private sector, in the long term, is far more efficient than government services.
I was responding to the original claim that everything should be privatized. I agree that privatization is good in some cases. However, there IS a reason for public funding of certain infrastructure.
You must admit that public education is better at establishing "a level playing field" than completely privatized education. Do you really think that the child of a wealthy person *deserves*, or has a *right* to a better education than any other child? Do you think it's acceptable that a child could miss out on an education because their parents can't afford it?
We have public funding for things we consider basic rights. We all think everyone has a right to an education, so we constructed systems to give everyone access to those services. We also think everyone should have access to clean water, so we have municipal water utilities. There is room for discussion of these issues, e.g. an American would say that health care is a priviledge, whereas a Canadian would say that access to basic health care is a right. That's why Canada has a universal health care system, and the U.S. does not.
The reasons why we choose to create public services is because of the argument that *everyone* benefits when access is available. To go back to previous examples: if you use public funds to connect everyone to the electrical grid, then you've increased the demand for electrical appliances. If you use public funds to build roads, then you make it easier for all companies and individuals to do business. If you use public funds to educate all children, then more kids will grow up to contribute to your economy, which makes everyone wealthier. So, in the long run, I would suggest that sometimes the private sector is *less* efficient.
Government subsidies are bad.
Riiiight. The streets around your house will look awful funny when only 70% of your neighbours pay their road construction bills. 30% of your street will be dirt road, the rest paved?
I suppose education should be completely privatized too. That way, the only chance a child from a lower economic class has to make something of themselves will be torn away because their parents can only afford to choose two of these three alternatives: 1) feed them 2) clothe them 3) educate them.
I suppose, by your logic, that I should have to pay for my own dedicated wiring from my house to the electricity provider of my choice, right? Would we really have, like, 99% of all houses connected to the electical grid (therefore, accelerating the growth of other technologies like electrical appliances) if distribution was privatized? Would there be any incentive to have a step down station in bumsville, nowhere?
Markets work, u know?
Markets work with quite a bit of help. Do you think they'd work if we didn't have laws regulating fraud, disclosure, etc.?
I think the more interesting question isn't "what if," but "why?"
The obvious answer to "why?" is always "why not?" That means someone will some day, if possible, try this. That's why I'm saying it needs to be discussed first.
Quebec.
I'd rather think of this as a thought experiment. "What if?" This may not be possible in the time frame discussed, or it may never be possible, but it's more interesting just to say, if it was possible, what would that mean. We have a responsibility to discuss it before it happens, so we don't get caught with our ethical pants down like we did with human cloning (I mean fully fledged humans, not stem cells).
Anyone else happen to have a 4600 lb. magnet lying around?
Yes, I keep it right here, next to my server backup tapes.
all the Minix guy did was put forth his opinion that microkernels were the wave of the future
If you want proof that MicroKernels are neat, go and get QNX.
Actually most accessibility features are quite cheap.
Interesting, but will it be that cheap to add accessibility to corporate web sites? Especially since companies have to keep redesigning web sites - it isn't like a building where you build it once, and it sits there for decades.