I wish you were right but the majority of the people working at my employer's company would say you are dead wrong.
What's worse is how many younger people are clueless about computers too because it's uncool and nerdy to use a computer for something other than MySpace.
While you may find it disturbing it's nice to have a group that doesn't have to pander to the uneducated masses. The introduction of life-peers in 1958 was ok but it's just the commons working on destroying the house of lords.
The house of lords need to have anything to do with religion. They can earn their place through religion but through being a senior judge or just through inheritance. The only difference with life peers is that the Queen picks them based upon suggestions by the PM and other party leaders and their spot can't be passed on. They are still there for life and, if they wanted to, show complete disregard for society for their whole term.
Despite not "earning" their position through election the Lords have made some good decisions and it is definitely good to have one group that doesn't have it's policy revolve around opinion polls but instead what they think is right. That is much better than Brown's recent pandering to the Daily Mail morons with his "British jobs for British people", holidays celebrating Britain, and whatever else, cracking down on immigration through a typical British manner of increasing bureaucracy and costs rather than focusing on illegal immigration and seriously cracking down on it.
The usual Daily Mail reader goes on about US and Australian immigration without realising the key differences, ie no pointless bureaucracy and once you get a green card it's for good so the harder process is backed up by a better reward unlike the UK's way of handling immigration. But Gordon just adds points to the immigration process and say it's like Australia now and the idiots lap it up because they don't know any better. Again this is why the Lords are needed.
While the Commons usually doesn't overrule they Lords they can do so in an instance where the Lords don't agree on laws passed by the Commons.
MS shouldn't even allow you to be an admin. It should have an admin password which you can use to perform certain tasks but it's only that task that has admin rights and they're gone once it's over.
It's not like this is some sort of new concept or anything so I'm not sure why they won't do it.
You must have a bad package. Most of mine would allow around 5 megs included per month which doesn't sound like much until you realist mobile internet is shit to look at and read so you struggle to use that and when I have I've never had to ay more than a couple pounds.
I like Vodafone's PAYG mobile broadband deal where you pay £15 for a gig and use it as and when. But it's still a bit too pricey for me. I know I won't use it much and yeah 1 gig probably will last me awhile but I think I'll wait until it's, at most, £10 per 1 gig.
The problem is that not all lines are even copper. BT still has aluminium wire in the ground in some areas. Granted it's probably not that wide spread any more but it comes mainly from the 70's (I think) when copper cost a lot. Apparently Milton Keynes has a load of houses hooked up with shit aluminium wiring. It just doesn't last long.
In fact I may still be being services by aluminium on this street. BT is supposed to have replaced it last year or this year and they claim it's only this street. Luckily I'm just down the road from the exchange so I don't think I'm affected too bad except for when it falls apart and I gotta call them up. It usually takes a few goes for them to fix it because the wiring is so old it does literally fall apart as they try to patch it up.
Despite this I can still manage 5-6 megs of my 8 meg package.
I don't think they can start their own label as the Beatles' Apple Records would be all over them. They had trouble just for starting iTunes but I think they'd definitely lose any battle for starting a music label.
Considering how much the media loves pedo stories you sure don't see too many in the news.
Secondly it's statistically more likely to be a family member or someone close to the kid that molests them. So the last thing you should be doing is locking the kid up in the house around its family members.
If people want to grow the Linux market share which would be good for everyone involved in Linux then people at least need to settle on certain standards or get behind one.
More importantly to get somewhere a distro needs some marketing and it would be better to pool resources behind one considering even then paying for marketing is bound to be a money losing situation for some time.
It would not hurt to get behind one distro for a short period when the return is that more developers put focus linux and companies start giving it better support so people don't have to spend their free time making things work that should just work and can instead focus on innovation rather than making printers and web cams work.
When the majority of our media and perhaps even phone communication comes through the internet that 28k isn't going to do shit. At some point they will have to be hooked up. The government might as well enforce it now.
After all the farmers were nice enough to allow them to run fiber across their land to hook up the east & west coast for selfish tits like you.
The same thing could be said about phone or electricity and yet they've done or are you saying we should say fuck it to the the few remaining people growing food in this country?
Dial-up is nearly useless now. It will be beyond useless in the near future.
Perhaps they should say fuck it to farming so they don't get left in the stone age and you can be completely dependant on other countries for food. I'm sure they won't take advantage of the situation at all.
What I don't like about Linkedin is giving away my career history to the internet. I know you don't have ot but in a way that sort of defeats the point of it.
Believing that the US is too spread out is just making yourself out to be a corporate tool.
The US was even more spread out before the telephone and we managed to get everyone a phone and that's without much infrastructure existing (seeing how everyone didn't have a telegraph line to their home).
If you want to argue that there are more regulations and what not now. The government can easily tell people to shut and quit holding the US back.
The simple fact is that telecos do no want everyone to have broadband. Even with phones they pretty much despise helping those in rural areas.
When a phone line gets cut they more or less tape it together and, at least with Verizon, the only qualification for a working phone line is that you can make out what someone says. If there's static on top of that then tough shit even if it means you only internet option, dial-up is pretty much ruined.
Loss of phone service results in them coming out to fix it as and when they get free time even if that means going a week without. This sort of stuff doesn't just happen to people who live on their own and miles away from others either.
I don't think a lot of people realise how shit it is to be outside of urban area and how backwards some parts of the US are for something as basic as communication.
It's appalling and it is holding people back and when the internet becomes more important it'll puts those areas in poverty and hold people back from getting jobs making them a drain on the over all system and there will be no chance to spread the wealth as no technical company would ever want to set up shop in a place so backwards.
Why create a two tier system which will make it virtually impossible for some people to access bits of the internet and make it impossible for some states to increase IT businesses in their state because their connections are outdated?
There is no reason this shouldn't be done like what was done for phones and make sure everyone gets access.
I don't think it's a case of it takes x amount of updates to make something worthy of a full version.
All one has to do is ask is it worth the typical asking price of a full version of Windows and if the developer itself is calling it a minor release then it's probably not worthy of a full version.
I'm sure Win 7 will be better than Vista but that's not hard to do but it still stinks of MS just tweaking Vista and giving it a new name in hopes people will think it's something different. in other words it's more or less a full scale Mojave Experiment and I think that's more of an upgrade than a full OS.
I think the problem isn't so much what MS is doing in the sense of making a minor update but the fact they're completely hiding their motives.
Vista has pretty much been a failure and they're making little updates to it and re-releasing it.
Fine, but don't call it a new OS to justify charging full price for it. It's an upgrade so give it to Vista users at a upgrade price (if not free) and only let those who are on XP or something else pay full price.
Obviously that won't help them con people into thinking this is completely new and they won't remove the Vista stigma by doing that but I think shifting things around in Vista and giving it a new name doesn't justify the full cost of a new OS. So they should either give us more or charge less.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Ballmer going to give you a pay rise for this comment?
I wish you were right but the majority of the people working at my employer's company would say you are dead wrong.
What's worse is how many younger people are clueless about computers too because it's uncool and nerdy to use a computer for something other than MySpace.
I've just sent them my views on this too. It sucks and I hope most people here will let them know that.
While you may find it disturbing it's nice to have a group that doesn't have to pander to the uneducated masses. The introduction of life-peers in 1958 was ok but it's just the commons working on destroying the house of lords.
The house of lords need to have anything to do with religion. They can earn their place through religion but through being a senior judge or just through inheritance. The only difference with life peers is that the Queen picks them based upon suggestions by the PM and other party leaders and their spot can't be passed on. They are still there for life and, if they wanted to, show complete disregard for society for their whole term.
Despite not "earning" their position through election the Lords have made some good decisions and it is definitely good to have one group that doesn't have it's policy revolve around opinion polls but instead what they think is right. That is much better than Brown's recent pandering to the Daily Mail morons with his "British jobs for British people", holidays celebrating Britain, and whatever else, cracking down on immigration through a typical British manner of increasing bureaucracy and costs rather than focusing on illegal immigration and seriously cracking down on it.
The usual Daily Mail reader goes on about US and Australian immigration without realising the key differences, ie no pointless bureaucracy and once you get a green card it's for good so the harder process is backed up by a better reward unlike the UK's way of handling immigration. But Gordon just adds points to the immigration process and say it's like Australia now and the idiots lap it up because they don't know any better. Again this is why the Lords are needed.
While the Commons usually doesn't overrule they Lords they can do so in an instance where the Lords don't agree on laws passed by the Commons.
Chill out before you lose it and chuck a chair at you mom.
I can deal with mosquitoes. It's those rare flying chairs in the heart of Washington state that I'm afraid of.
Unfortunately there have been more of them spotted in recent years. So this is the real epidemic to watch out for.
I'm sure someone found a way to read them and the data will be uploaded to the net soon like a lot of government data.
MS shouldn't even allow you to be an admin. It should have an admin password which you can use to perform certain tasks but it's only that task that has admin rights and they're gone once it's over.
It's not like this is some sort of new concept or anything so I'm not sure why they won't do it.
I write Joomla but I like internet porn so I'm still a wanker.
You must have a bad package. Most of mine would allow around 5 megs included per month which doesn't sound like much until you realist mobile internet is shit to look at and read so you struggle to use that and when I have I've never had to ay more than a couple pounds.
I like Vodafone's PAYG mobile broadband deal where you pay £15 for a gig and use it as and when. But it's still a bit too pricey for me. I know I won't use it much and yeah 1 gig probably will last me awhile but I think I'll wait until it's, at most, £10 per 1 gig.
The problem is that not all lines are even copper. BT still has aluminium wire in the ground in some areas. Granted it's probably not that wide spread any more but it comes mainly from the 70's (I think) when copper cost a lot. Apparently Milton Keynes has a load of houses hooked up with shit aluminium wiring. It just doesn't last long.
In fact I may still be being services by aluminium on this street. BT is supposed to have replaced it last year or this year and they claim it's only this street. Luckily I'm just down the road from the exchange so I don't think I'm affected too bad except for when it falls apart and I gotta call them up. It usually takes a few goes for them to fix it because the wiring is so old it does literally fall apart as they try to patch it up.
Despite this I can still manage 5-6 megs of my 8 meg package.
I don't think they can start their own label as the Beatles' Apple Records would be all over them. They had trouble just for starting iTunes but I think they'd definitely lose any battle for starting a music label.
So where's your proof it's not true?
Considering how much the media loves pedo stories you sure don't see too many in the news.
Secondly it's statistically more likely to be a family member or someone close to the kid that molests them. So the last thing you should be doing is locking the kid up in the house around its family members.
If people want to grow the Linux market share which would be good for everyone involved in Linux then people at least need to settle on certain standards or get behind one.
More importantly to get somewhere a distro needs some marketing and it would be better to pool resources behind one considering even then paying for marketing is bound to be a money losing situation for some time.
It would not hurt to get behind one distro for a short period when the return is that more developers put focus linux and companies start giving it better support so people don't have to spend their free time making things work that should just work and can instead focus on innovation rather than making printers and web cams work.
When the majority of our media and perhaps even phone communication comes through the internet that 28k isn't going to do shit. At some point they will have to be hooked up. The government might as well enforce it now.
After all the farmers were nice enough to allow them to run fiber across their land to hook up the east & west coast for selfish tits like you.
The same thing could be said about phone or electricity and yet they've done or are you saying we should say fuck it to the the few remaining people growing food in this country?
Dial-up is nearly useless now. It will be beyond useless in the near future.
Perhaps they should say fuck it to farming so they don't get left in the stone age and you can be completely dependant on other countries for food. I'm sure they won't take advantage of the situation at all.
What I don't like about Linkedin is giving away my career history to the internet. I know you don't have ot but in a way that sort of defeats the point of it.
Believing that the US is too spread out is just making yourself out to be a corporate tool.
The US was even more spread out before the telephone and we managed to get everyone a phone and that's without much infrastructure existing (seeing how everyone didn't have a telegraph line to their home).
If you want to argue that there are more regulations and what not now. The government can easily tell people to shut and quit holding the US back.
The simple fact is that telecos do no want everyone to have broadband. Even with phones they pretty much despise helping those in rural areas.
When a phone line gets cut they more or less tape it together and, at least with Verizon, the only qualification for a working phone line is that you can make out what someone says. If there's static on top of that then tough shit even if it means you only internet option, dial-up is pretty much ruined.
Loss of phone service results in them coming out to fix it as and when they get free time even if that means going a week without. This sort of stuff doesn't just happen to people who live on their own and miles away from others either.
I don't think a lot of people realise how shit it is to be outside of urban area and how backwards some parts of the US are for something as basic as communication.
It's appalling and it is holding people back and when the internet becomes more important it'll puts those areas in poverty and hold people back from getting jobs making them a drain on the over all system and there will be no chance to spread the wealth as no technical company would ever want to set up shop in a place so backwards.
Nearly doesn't not mean exactly and 100 is close enough to 120, imo, to be nearly double.
Probably not but think about how much bandwidth most internet activities need and the fact not everyone is a pirate.
Even if everyone can't get 1gig at least the ground work is laid and it'll be much easier to get everyone to that point once the cable is laid.
Why create a two tier system which will make it virtually impossible for some people to access bits of the internet and make it impossible for some states to increase IT businesses in their state because their connections are outdated?
There is no reason this shouldn't be done like what was done for phones and make sure everyone gets access.
I don't think it's a case of it takes x amount of updates to make something worthy of a full version.
All one has to do is ask is it worth the typical asking price of a full version of Windows and if the developer itself is calling it a minor release then it's probably not worthy of a full version.
I'm sure Win 7 will be better than Vista but that's not hard to do but it still stinks of MS just tweaking Vista and giving it a new name in hopes people will think it's something different. in other words it's more or less a full scale Mojave Experiment and I think that's more of an upgrade than a full OS.
I think the problem isn't so much what MS is doing in the sense of making a minor update but the fact they're completely hiding their motives.
Vista has pretty much been a failure and they're making little updates to it and re-releasing it.
Fine, but don't call it a new OS to justify charging full price for it. It's an upgrade so give it to Vista users at a upgrade price (if not free) and only let those who are on XP or something else pay full price.
Obviously that won't help them con people into thinking this is completely new and they won't remove the Vista stigma by doing that but I think shifting things around in Vista and giving it a new name doesn't justify the full cost of a new OS. So they should either give us more or charge less.
Just because your company stays in the stone age doesn't mean everyone else is.
It's unfortunate but it may be best for your company if stability means more than new features an it's that way with any language.
How many betas does a service pack need?